Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Orders

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what orders to, or requests to place orders with, British firms or shipyards by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been received; how many, and what kinds of ships are concerned; whether the orders, or requests to place orders, have yet been accepted; and by which firms, in Scotland and England, respectively.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Civil Lord gave to him last Wednesday.

Mr. Hughes: Will the First Lord say upon what principle these allocations are made, and why so few are made to Aberdeen?

Mr. Thomas: Is not that a supplementary question which should be asked on Question No. 2?

Mr. Hughes: I have asked a supplementary question to Question No. 1.

Mr. Thomas: There is no question of allocation at the moment. Orders have first to be placed with the firms before the Admiralty is asked to give a licence. The only one actually placed is the order at Lowestoft for 20 trawlers. The matter of placing orders in individual yards is one for the enterprise of the firms concerned.

Mr. Hughes: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I made a mistake about the Question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the rate at which orders were placed with British shipbuilding yards in 1953 is below the annual replacement figures for preceding years; that this threatens losses to British shipbuilding and unemployment; and what are his present and future plans to avoid these losses.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: As my hon. Friend the Civil Lord informed the House yesterday, the present situation in the shipbuilding industry is that, while there was a marked decline in new orders for merchant ships last year, the accumulation of orders over the previous three years represents broadly work for the next two or three years, though some of the smaller yards will shortly need further orders to keep their building berths fully occupied. There is therefore, no immediate risk of serious unemployment in the industry; in fact total employment increased in 1953, but the situation will continue to be carefully watched, and needs watching.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the various authorities in the shipbuilding industry have expressed fears at the paucity of the orders which are coming in for next year? Would not it be better if the Government adopted a more forthcoming policy with regard to foreign orders, to prevent them going to European shipbuilding yards instead of to British yards?

Mr. Thomas: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we certainly do adopt a forthcoming attitude towards foreign nations, including Soviet Russia. I am watching very carefully the position as it affects the small yards. With regard to the shipbuilding position in general, I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) either yesterday or today—I forget which.

Aberdeen Firms (Steel Plate Supplies)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the present allocation of steel plate to each of the Aberdeen shipbuilding firms.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: As announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of


Supply on 5th May, 1953, statutory control of the distribution of iron and steel, with the exception of tinplate, was terminated on 6th May, 1953, and allocations of steel other than tinplate then ceased. The voluntary distribution scheme for steel plate, announced by my right hon. Friend on 20th April, 1953, continues to operate.

Mr. Hughes: Are these allocations of steel plate likely to be maintained in the current year? Also, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on not becoming confused by my putting the wrong supplementary on Question No. 1?

Mr. Thomas: After our long sitting yesterday, I particularly welcome the hon. and learned Member's congratulations. It is difficult to answer the question, but supplies are expected to be greater in 1954 than they were in 1953.

Commander Scott-Miller: May we take it from my right hon. Friend's original reply that the steel supplies position is not in any way hindering the shipbuilding programme?

Mr. Thomas: I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance. I am afraid that supplies still play a part in slackening the pace, but I have just said to the hon. and learned Member that I hope very much, in fact I am sure, that supplies this year will show an improvement on those of last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Aqualung Equipment

Mr. Snow: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what part the use of the aqualung equipment has in naval undersea warfare training; and whether he is satisfied that this type of equipment, as opposed to oxygen-type equipment, is receiving adequate attention.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: This equipment is under trial; its possible use will receive full consideration.

Mr. Snow: Does the right hon. Gentleman have it in mind that, as he said in his speech yesterday, the Navy is depending more and more on National Service men, and that two years is quite insufficient for the training of men in this type of submarine activity? Will he bear in

mind the need for giving both types of equipment adequate attention in the training programme?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, I certainly will. The equipment is now undergoing naval trials in the Mediterranean. Until I know the result of the trials it is a little difficult to talk about the future, but I will certainly give the matter full consideration.

Mr. Hastings: Is the aqualung equipment as satisfactory as the oxygen type from the point of view of the health of the seamen?

Mr. Thomas: I am afraid I cannot answer that question until I receive the report of the trials in the Mediterranean. I watched the oxygen process at work upon the person of the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean when I was out there last September. I have seen it at work, but until I have had the report of the trials I cannot say more about it.

Mr. Snow: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will look into the question of placing at the disposal of reputable clubs, facilities for the instruction of non-naval persons in the use of the aqualung.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Yes, Sir. I will certainly look into the question.

Mr. Snow: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that such clubs as the British Sub-Aqua Club that are offering facilities to the public in rather difficult circumstances would appreciate such assistance, and that there is at least one Member on each side of the House who is a member of the club?

Mr. Thomas: I will certainly bear that important fact in mind, but I would again point out that until I receive the results of the trials in the Mediterranean it is difficult to train other people.

Underwater Film Facilities (B.B.C.)

Mr. Snow: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what facilities his Department has granted, with or without the collaboration of the French Ministre de la Marine, to the British Broadcasting Corporation and M. Cousteau for the taking of a submarine film for television purposes.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: No such facilities have been requested, though the British Broadcasting Corporation has frequently been given use of Admiralty copyright underwater films. I should, of course, be glad to consider whether facilities could be provided if a request were made.

Mr. Snow: While not in any way wishing to deprecate the initiative or the activities of M. Cousteau, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be a good thing for him to take an active interest in this type of work and to see whether this proposed expedition to the Aegean should not receive the Navy's consideration.

Mr. Thomas: The Admiralty is very interested in this question, and I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Ceremonial Visits, Londonderry

Mr. Wellwood: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty which of Her Majesty's ships will make ceremonial visits to the Port of Londonderry this year; and if he will give details of such visits as have already been arranged.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 3rd March to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I will let him have the information he requires as soon as it is available.

New Submarine (Cost)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the estimated cost of the latest type of submarine.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in America the price of the latest submarine is given as £18 million? Is it out of consideration for the taxpayers or for security interests that the right hon. Gentleman is not telling the cost of his new submarine?

Mr. Thomas: It is for various reasons, one of which is that I see no reason to give prior information to other countries that may be interested in it. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, the estimated

costs the Admiralty never gives. If a vessel is accepted for service then its cost is published in the Navy Estimates, and the hon. Gentleman and I can discuss it in the ensuing debate on those Estimates.

Commander Donaldson: In view of my right hon. Friend's remarks yesterday regarding propulsion of the new submarine by hydrogen peroxide, will he re-christen the first of this class H.M.S "Blondie"?

Oral Answers to Questions — HER MAJESTY'S YACHT

Mr. Dodds: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what decision he has reached in considering providing facilities to enable representatives of the technical and national Press to view Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia."

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I have considered the hon. Member's suggestion but I am sure the House will agree that, until Her Majesty The Queen has had an opportunity of seeing her yacht in its finished state, it would be inappropriate for the Admiralty to seek authority to permit an inspection by the Press.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that if and when technical Press representatives visit the yacht the visits will not be such expensive visits as those of the technical experts in the past three months?

Mr. Thomas: I must deny absolutely the implication in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I was one of those who visited the yacht, and I am not aware that I caused any excessive expense.

Mr. Manuel: How much?

Mr. Thomas: I went to inspect the shipbuilding yards on Clydeside, and there was the cost of my railway journey to Glasgow and back. While I was there I had the pleasure of inspecting the Royal Yacht. There has been a good deal of exaggeration about the increased expense of the Royal Yacht. It is very small compared with the increased costs of shipbuilding generally since her keel was laid down, and those who built her have informed me that every kind of economy was made at the request of the late King, followed by the request of Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if a decision is delayed too long the value of the visit by the Press will be lost? In view of the tremendous amount of money that has been spent on this great engineering project, and the need for publicity for our shipyards, will not the right hon. Gentleman try to expedite the inspection by representatives of the technical Press?

Mr. Thomas: I am quite prepared to go into the question again, if the House wishes, on the return of Her Majesty, but I am sure the House will agree that that could not be done before Her Majesty herself inspects the yacht.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Unstamped Air Letter Forms

Mr. Tilney: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, with a view to helping travellers, he will arrange for main post offices and those at airports to sell unstamped air letter forms.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): The Post Office does not sell unstamped stationery, and I have already sent to my hon. Friend a list of firms from which unstamped United Kingdom air letter forms can be obtained. If, as I believe, he is also referring to unstamped air letter forms for posting at post offices or at aerodromes abroad, a United Kingdom air letter would not normally be valid.

Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that such unstamped air letters are available in other countries, including our own Colonial Territories? Does he not regard it as illogical that one can use Forces air letter forms and not be able to buy proper air letter forms in our own post offices?

Mr. Gammans: The Post Office does not want to go into the stationery business. I think we have quite enough to look after.

Telegrams

Mr. Driberg: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will examine the possibility of charging a higher rate for betting telegrams than for ordinary business or personal telegrams.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. It is not possible to discriminate reasonably between one type of business message and another.

Mr. Driberg: If it is possible to discriminate between different classes of telegrams—greetings or priority or Press —why could there not be a special surcharge for betting telegrams? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although many of us usually place our few small bets by telephone rather than by telegram, none the less any decent gambling man would gladly pay a surcharge of 5s. or more for each telegram, if that would be the means of saving some unfortunate bereaved family from being overcharged?

Mr. Gammans: I think that the hon. Gentleman is over-optimistic. All that would happen would be that betting telegrams would then be sent in code.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the bookmakers regard him as the man who stabbed them in the back, and does he realise that he is regarded by the bookmakers as a traitor to his class?

Mr. Gammans: I have never been a favourite of the "bookies" so I regard that criticism with complete equanimity.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General, in view of the increased charge for telegrams, if he will consider providing a code by which conventional or familiar messages can be sent at a lower rate, as with cables, by the employment of three or four code letters.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. The use of such a code would not reduce costs, because any saving on transmission costs would be offset by the cost of decoding messages at the receiving office. Delivery costs, which constitute 45 per cent, of the cost of handling inland telegrams, would be unaffected.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is, when code is used for cable purposes, obviously with some advantage, financial and otherwise, the same principle cannot operate with profit in the case of conventional and family messages?

Mr. Gammans: There is nothing to stop people from using private codes if they want to do so, but the cost of an external telegram is, of course, greater than the cost of an internal one.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it not clear from the Minister's reply to this and other Questions that what he ought to reconsider is the unsocial decision to put another 100 per cent, increase on telegraph charges?

Mr. Gammans: I am painfully aware of the fact that my announcement on this subject last week was not popular.

Mr. K. Thompson: Will the Minister take into consideration the great advantages that would accrue to both business interests and senders of various kinds of telegrams if we restored the late collection of ordinary mail in the big cities?

Mr. Gammans: That would cost a vast sum of money, and is a matter which I could not possibly discuss in answer to a Question.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that during the last eight years there has been a 50 per cent, decline in the number of telegrams sent; and whether, since the increased charges have meant a diminishing return to the Post Office revenues, he will now reduce the charge for telegrams.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. There is no doubt whatever that a reduction in charge would increase the loss.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that he has not attempted to answer the point of my Question, which is that there is already a 50 per cent, fall in the number of telegrams and that if this rise in charges continues obviously the service will have to be abolished eventually, as nobody will be able to use it?

Mr. Gammans: That is not the view of the Government. We expected a falling off in the service every year and that has continued since the war.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will publish in HANSARD the papers, documents and minutes of the Post Office Advisory Council, showing where that council had been consulted and agreed to the recently announced increases in the price of telegrams.

Captain Duncan: On a point of order. I notice that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) is asking in this Question for the publication in HANSARD of all the documents and minutes of a

certain Council. As you, Mr. Speaker, are responsible to this House for what appears in HANSARD, do you not think that it is an abuse of this House to ask for such voluminous documents to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot deal with that point until I hear the answer to Question No. 27.

Mr. Lewis: Am I not right in saying that if the Clerks of the Table have accepted the Question it is, therefore, in order?

Mr. Speaker: I think we ought to hear the answer.

Mr. Gammans: The answer to the Question is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister explain why he cannot adopt the suggestion in the Question? Perhaps then we shall have an answer to the point raised last week and we shall know whether the Minister was right or one of my hon. Friends was right.

Mr. Gammans: As far as I know, there is no answer relating to last week, because the minutes to which reference has been made have not been roneoed and have not been distributed.

Captain Duncan: May I ask you now, Mr. Speaker, whether in your opinion it is not an abuse of the procedure of this House to ask for the publication of such voluminous documents, especially as the OFFICIAL REPORT is published under your authority?

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point. I have no knowledge—and I do not know that the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has either—of how voluminous the correspondence may be, but in view of the fact that when the Assistant Postmaster-General made his announcement last week, and in the course of exchanges which took place on it, he did purport to refer to and to report to the House an actual decision of the Advisory Council, would not that cure any defect such as that which the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus contemplated in his point of order?

Mr. Speaker: As the answer to the Question was in the negative, these matters still remain in the hypothetical


stage. Had it been an affirmative answer I might have had to consider the subject more carefully.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order. Surely, we axe entitled to know whether an hon. Member is able to put a Question requesting information which he feels that the House or he himself is entitled to have without any hon. Member, who may or may not know whether it involves a voluminous document, raising a point of order. Surely if the Table accepts the Question, it is in order.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing wrong with the Question. The only point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) was whether it would be proper to permit publication of a voluminous document in the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is quite a different matter, and it does not arise now as the answer to the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Manuel: Further to that point of order. This is most interesting. You have ruled, Mr Speaker, that the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) was in order in raising this point. Do I take it that when any Minister indicates that he will have something printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT we shall be in order in asking whether it is voluminous or not before it is printed?

Mr. Speaker: That again is purely hypothetical. Most statements and answers published in the OFFICIAL REPORT are very brief, and are for the convenience of hon. Members.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to what extent the increased cost of telegrams can be attributed to increased expenditure due to the defence programme.

Mr. Gammans: Not at all.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General approximately how many telegrams are sent each year, by wholesalers and others, in connection with landings and distribution of fish.

Mr. Gammans: Rather under two million a year.

Mr. Driberg: Does that mean that the extra charge will cost the industry something like £200,000 a year more, and, coming on top of other increases in costs.

extra freight charges and so on, will not this tend to promote a not insignificant increase in the price of this important food?

Mr. Gammans: I am afraid that it will cost more but I cannot see any conceivable reason why the fish trade or any other trade should be subsidised by other users of the Post Office.

Mr. Osborne: As this will fall heavily on the Grimsby Fish Merchants' Association, who calculate that it will cost £150,000 a year extra, will my hon. Friend look at this matter again, if representations are sent to him from the industry?

Mr. Gammans: I cannot make any promise to look at this particular industry on its own account, unless I destroy the whole value of raising the telegram charges.

Stolen Packages, London (Staff Instructions)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, prior to the journey, special staff instructions were issued for safeguarding the packages of high value, recently stolen in transit, to jewellery firms in Regent Street, W.1.

Mr. Gammans: There are standing instructions for drivers of vans on services of this kind: the driver of this particular van is in custody.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister say whether an ordinary van was used for this journey or whether a special service van was ordered and used, when it was known that valuable jewellery was involved?

Mr. Gammans: These were ordinary registered packets and not packages of high value.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Reception

Mr. Hayman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what representations he has received regarding the quality of the British Broadcasting Corporation's radio reception in West Cornwall; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Gammans: Representations have been made recently by a number of hon. Members, and by local authorities and others. Reception of the Home Service in the Redruth area was improved last October, when a low-power transmitter opened there. Elsewhere in West Cornwall improved reception depends on the provision of V.H.F. sound broadcasting, but I am afraid it is too early to say when such a service can be provided there.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General bear in mind that although Penryn in my constituency is only about seven miles from the Redruth transmitter, the reception is very poor indeed, and that the clerk to the West Penwith Rural District Council, writing officially, states that the conditions in West Cornwall are appalling? Will he give an undertaking that V.H.F. will be introduced before either commercial television or alternative television in any other part of the country?

Mr. Gammans: Very high frequency and commercial television have nothing whatever to do with each other. I am well aware that in parts of Cornwall, as in other parts of the country, sound reception is very poor, and that the only remedy is the introduction of V.H.F.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that the wavelength of 434 metres is of no use in the Morpeth area, and that when it was announced on 27th February, 1954, at 9.15 p.m. that those who wish to listen to "Saturday Night Theatre" should tune in to the above mentioned wavelength instead of 261 metres, inconvenience was caused to those listeners who can only rely on 261 metres for any kind of a reception; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Gammans: This change of wavelength was made by the B.B.C. at the last moment, and they regret the inconvenience which may have been caused to listeners in North-East England. The normal wavelength of 261 metres was used for a substitute programme which, I understand, was a boxing match of particular interest to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I put this Question down on account of the widespread dissatisfaction

in the North of England at the abrupt changing of this programme on the night of 27th February, switching the broadcast of the Saturday night play to 434 metres from 261 metres, which meant that the people in the North-East were deprived of their Saturday night play, to which they look forward as one of the B.B.C.'s popular programmes? As there are 1,636,248 sound licences in the North-East, it is safe to assume that about five million people were disappointed. How long is this to go on? How long have we got to be tied up to Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland tied up to us, so that we lose our plays?

Mr. Gammans: This change is not made by the Post Office but by the B.B.C. on its own volition. If it occurs frequently and not as an isolated occurrence, then I think something will have to be done about it.

Licences

Mr. Janner: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why the official cards asking for the renewal of wireless and television licences and giving the manner in which cheques or postal orders should be made payable contain no reference to the amount to be paid for the licence.

Mr. Gammans: The amount was left off deliberately last year because of the large numbers of cards involved and the possibility of an increased licence charge this year. Next year the figure will be reintroduced.

Mr. Janner: Does not the Minister realise that it is a silly thing to send out a demand without putting in the amount which he is demanding, so that people will know how much they are to pay?

Mr. Gammans: I said that I would correct that next year. It would have been much sillier to send out a lot of old licence cards with £2 on them and then have to alter that to £3.

Mr. Hoy: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many wireless and television licences were issued in Edinburgh and Leith during 1953.

Mr. Gammans: For the Edinburgh head office district, which includes Leith, the figures were about 136,000 for sound reception only and about 17,500 for sound and television.

Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one-third out of each of these licences is paid to the Performing Rights Society, which now receives an annual payment of over £700,000 from the B.B.C., and would he agree to look into the matter?

Mr. Gammans: That is raising a Question entirely different from the original one. I think that the hon. Gentleman must put it down on the Order Paper if he would like me to give an answer to it.

Television Licence Fee (Payment)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increase of the television licence fee to £3, he will arrange for payment to be made half-yearly.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. The cost would be too great. We are, however, examining the possibility of introducing a special savings stamp card.

Mr. Davies: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General give further consideration to this matter? There are very large numbers of people, including elderly people and those on pensions, who will find it very difficult indeed to pay £3 in one sum; and will he, therefore, give sympathetic consideration to the idea of a savings card or payments by instalments?

Mr. Gammans: That is what I have promised to do. I would, however, suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if people can afford to spend £60 or more on a television set they can save £3 for a licence in one year.

Mr. Davies: That is grossly unfair. It is a well-known fact that many television sets are bought by instalments, and if, in addition to those instalments, the purchasers must pay £3 in one sum, it is going to make it very difficult for them to maintain their payments.

Mr. Gammans: As I have said, we are considering the possibility of having a special savings card, but I confess that I cannot feel much sympathy for people who can afford £60 or more for a television set.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that many people now have hired television and pay weekly for

it? Surely in cases of this kind it might be possible to arrange for them to pay for their licences in two half-yearly instalments? That means only one notification, and I should have thought that this was a scheme to be looked at now.

Mr. Gammans: We cannot possibly make these licences payable by half-yearly instalments. The extra pressure on the Post Office and on the counters is now so great that that would lead to a complete upheaval. I have promised that I will look into the possibility of a savings card.

Mr. Davies: In view of the unsatisfactory attitude of the Assistant Postmaster-General, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Would it be too late now, Mr. Speaker, for me to give notice that, on account of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to my Question, No. 14, I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: I will receive the hon. Member's notice.

Interference Investigations (Cost Recovery)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why it is assumed that the television licence revenue must cover Post Office costs for dealing with interference; and if he will examine the possibility of recovering some part of these costs from undertakings causing the interference.

Mr. Gammans: As the hon. Member probably knows, the costs in question are the costs of tracing the causes of interference—not the costs of effecting cures. This is part of the process of ensuring good reception of the television service and, in the Government's view, is proper to be borne by television viewers in general.

Mr. Driberg: Can the Assistant Postmaster-General say whether in most of these cases, when the cause is traced, it is something which the firms in question, the electricity authority or whoever it is, could have dealt with themselves beforehand, or are they interfering wilfully, as it were?

Mr. Gammans: They could have dealt with it, I think, if they had known the reasons for it. We find that in the vast majority of cases when the cause of interference is traced there is not much difficulty in dealing with it.

Mr. Hobson: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General expedite the laying before this House of regulations under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to deal with this problem?

Mr. Gammans: I hope that we shall be able to lay them before the House before very long.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is not one of the greatest causes of interference old motor vehicles which do not come under present regulations, and which both he and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) have consistently refused to deal with?

Mr. Gammans: We have not consistently refused to deal with them. The only way in which they can be dealt with effectively is by employing a vast body of inspectors, and that we do not propose to do.

Station Site, North Hessary Tor

Mr. Hayman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he has taken to assure himself that the land which the British Broadcasting Corporation proposes to acquire for a television station on North Hessary Tor in the Dartmoor National Park is free from ancient common rights.

Mr. Gammans: This is a matter not for me but for the B.B.C., which is, I understand, at present looking further into the legal position.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General bear in mind that we have no desire to hinder the provision of this station but that it is felt that ancient common rights such as these, that have existed for a thousand years, should be adequately protected or properly extinguished by due process of law? Will he also remind the B.B.C. that as late as 1882 the Duchy of Cornwall said:
The soil of the commons of Devon is claimed to belong to the Duchy equally with the soil of the Forest."?

Mr. Gammans: That is a matter into which the B.B.C. is now looking.

Television Service, Cornwall

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether it will be possible to provide a temporary television service for Cornwall in time for the broadcast of Her Majesty's return from overseas.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. I think this must wait until the television station which the B.B.C. propose to erect on North Hessary Tor is opened.

Mr. Wilson: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the people of Cornwall were very disappointed not to have the opportunity of viewing the Coronation? Will he use his influence to do everything he can to expedite the provision of a service at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Gammans: I do not think that there will be any avoidable delay in starting the station at North Hessary Tor.

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that very large sums of money were spent by the B.B.C. in broadcasting the Coronation ceremony to the Continent, whilst Cornwall was deprived of the opportunity of viewing it? Will he ask the B.B.C. to consider the matter, because I understand that a very small sum would be involved in granting this concession?

Mr. Gammans: It is not correct to say that a small sum is involved. The B.B.C. is very heavily pressed now in providing its new stations, and I can hold out no hope whatever of a temporary station to broadcast the Queen's return.

Mr. Stevens: Arising out of my hon. Friend's first reply, can he say whether the transmitter in the Isle of Wight will be ready in time for Her Majesty's return so that the inhabitants of Portsmouth, Southampton and the hardy islanders will be able to share in this great event?

Mr. Gammans: That question is not on the Order Paper, but it may comfort my hon. Friend to know that there is not likely to be any delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE, CHESTER (TRUNK CALLS)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the average length of time taken for a subscriber to get a reply from the operator on the Chester exchange when making a trunk call.

Mr. Gammans: Five and a half seconds.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many, many cases it takes at least as many minutes to get an answer, and that if the subscriber tries to obtain help in his difficulties, that in turn takes five minutes at least?

Mr. Gammans: My hon. Friend asked me for the average time, and I have given it.

Mr. Driberg: How ample a sample did the hon. Gentleman take in order to establish this average?

Mr. Gammans: It is on the meter. There is no difficulty about it. It. is the average time taken at present at the Chester exchange.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Camps (Heating Arrangements)

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Under secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the heating arrangements in Royal Air Force camps.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Yes, Sir, in general.

Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware of the criticism that has been made by the United States General Wray of the heating systems in our camps, and is lie willing to make any statement about it?

Mr. Ward: I have seen that statement. I think we ought to bear two points in mind when we consider this matter. First, American customs with regard to heating are rather different. Some of us think that they warm their rooms rather too much. Second, most of the camps that the Americans have taken over in this country were war-time stations, and we ourselves would not regard the heating provided there as satisfactory for the Royal Air Force in peace-time.

Mr. Williams: May I think my hon. Friend for the warmth of his reply?

Unused Airfields, Northamptonshire

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Under secretary of State for Air which airfields not at present in use in Northampton shire he proposes to retain and which to hand back, and when.

Mr. Ward: There are seven airfields in Northamptonshire under Air Ministry control but not in current use by the Royal Air Force. Of these, four— Chelveston, Chipping Warden, Harrington and Polebrook—are being kept against future Royal Air Force requirements and three—Desborough, Peterborough and Spanhoe—will shortly be transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture. In addition, we expect later this year to give up using Grafton Underwood, and we shall then be able to derequisition it.

Mr. Mitchison: Cannot the Undersecretary be a little more hopeful about Harrington, which has been unoccupied and disused ever since the end of the war, as I believe all these airfields have?

Mr. Ward: Harrington is being held in reserve as a possible explosives store.

Ex-Luftwaffe Pilots (Training)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air what discrimination is exercised in the training by the Royal Air Force of ex-Luftwaffe pilots for Lufthansa duties; if he is aware that one of the men concerned has served a term of imprisonment for espionage; and why such a person has been accepted for this training

Mr. Ward: The Royal Air Force is not training any of these pilots.

Mr. Sorensen: If the Minister has no connection with the training of these pilots, can he say by whom they are being trained?

Mr. Ward: By a civilian company.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the civilian company in contact with any Government Department?

Mr. Ward: With the Foreign Office.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Gentleman explain, in view of his answer—which hon. Members naturally accept—why statements appeared in several newspapers to the contrary effect? Can nothing be done about this?

Mr. Ward: I can quite appreciate that there may have been misunderstandings, but I can only reaffirm what I said, that the Royal Air Force has nothing to do with this training, and I must ask hon.


Members to refer Questions on this subject to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Dr. King: Will not the Minister take steps to assure himself that none of those airmen who destroyed so much of Southampton in the war are being trained near Southampton?

Mr. Ward: That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Bowles: May I repeat the question which I put last week or the week before? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a German pilot who was taught to fly at Brooklands airfield came back during the war, bombed Vickers aircraft factory and killed 40 people in the mess during lunch-time, and was picked up later at Virginia Water, and that another German pilot who was trained at Reading came back during the war and bombed the Miles aircraft factory, and he also bailed out? Is it not time that the Government took this matter rather more seriously?

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not very helpful to suggest that the Air Ministry has nothing to do with the training of these pilots and later to admit that it is training them in collaboration with the Foreign Office.

Mr. Ward: I did not admit that we were training them in collaboration with the Foreign Office. I meant that any Questions about this training should be addressed to the Foreign Secretary and not to me.

Valetta Aircraft Crash, Aldbury

Mr. Janner: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) why the parents of Pilot Officer John David Pell, who was killed in the crash of the Valetta transport aeroplane on 6th January have not been given any official details of the cause of the crash, and have been told that the evidence given at the Royal Air Force court of inquiry and the findings of the court are confidential;
(2) concerning the Valetta aircraft which crashed at Tom's Hill, Aldbury, on 6th January, killing 15 officers and other ranks returning from a Rugby football match, how many extra passengers were taken on for the return flight; what examination there was of the icing of the wings after the aeroplane had been standing in the open for five hours: what

steps were taken to clear the wings of snow; in what weather conditions it took off; how many of the crew played in the match; and if he will compensate the widows and parents.

Mr. Ward: The Air Ministry's inquiries into this accident have only recently been completed. I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT which sets out the circumstances and covers the detailed points raised by the hon. Member. Similar information will be sent to relatives within the next few days.
Compensation as such is not payable when members of the Royal Air Force lose their lives during their service. Gratuities under the Forces Family Pensions Scheme have, however, been paid by the Air Ministry to the widows of the two married men among the casualties. In addition, pensions may be payable, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
The proceedings and findings of a court of inquiry are privileged documents, and it would be contrary to longstanding custom to publish them.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the sympathy of the Air Council with the relatives of those who lost their lives in this unfortunate accident.

Mr. Janner: I acknowledge the expressions of sympathy which the Minister has given, but is it not clear that if there has been negligence or a breach of the Regulations in this case the parents and others concerned are entitled to compensation? May I also ask why the proceedings are to be kept confidential, as against the interested parties, and whether the hon. Gentleman will state whether the meteorological report was considered at the time this aircraft took. off?

Mr. Ward: There is no evidence whatever of negligence, as I think the hon. Member will be satisfied when he reads the statement which I am circulating. If he is not satisfied, perhaps he will put down a Question on that point next week. With regard to his second point, the reason we do not publish the proceedings of courts of 'inquiry is that the foreknowledge that


'they might be published would impose a restraint both upon the court and upon witnesses giving evidence to it. I have told the hon. Member that the relatives will get a detailed and factual account, so far as we can give it to them, in the course of the next few days.
Following is the statement:
On 6th January, 1954, a Valetta aircraft was authorised to perform a pilot and navigation exercise and at the same time to convey a rugby team from Thorney Island to Boving-don and back. The outward journey with 16 people on board was uneventful. For the return flight an extra passenger was taken aboard. Although there are only 16 seats in this type of Valetta, there is an adequate takeoff and landing position for the seventeenth passenger and the addition of one extra passenger would not have brought the all-up weight of the aircraft beyond the maximum permissible for take-off. The pilot of the aircraft had not played in the match, although the other three members of the crew had.
The routine examination of the aircraft before take-off is the responsibility of the pilot, and it is not known whether steps were taken to clear the wings of snow. Since, however, the aircraft took off normally and the ground temperature was not below freezing point, it is clear that the wings were not iced up. The aircraft took off at 5.16 p.m. with visibility of about 1,200 yards in slight snow. There was a north-easterly wind blowing at about 12 knots. It is considered that the weather conditions at the time of take-off had no bearing on the cause of the crash.
The Valetta was last seen climbing at about 400 feet with a gentle turn to port. A few minutes later it struck a tree and crashed on Tom's Hill, Aldbury. It has not been possible to establish the cause of the accident, and it can only be assumed that the pilot was trying to fly within sight of the ground, in conditions of poor visibility, and that in doing so he crashed into the hill.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Canals and Inland Waterways (Survey)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will appoint a committee to make a comprehensive survey of the canals and inland waterways of Great Britain and to make recommendations for their more effective utilisation in the interests of the national economy and of public safety.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I will discuss the question of such a survey with the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Warbey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, but will he treat the matter as one of urgency, in view of the fact that the roads are becoming increasingly congested with heavy goods traffic, much of which could be more economically carried on the canals if they were suitably maintained?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly.

Mr. Woodburn: When the Minister institutes this survey will he keep in mind the question of amenities and the health of communities in the vicinity of these canals? In Scotland there have been some complaints about the stagnation of these canals becoming a nuisance and a disturbance to the health of the adjacent communities.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly shall. In fairness to the British Transport Commission, I must point out that it is entirely concerned with transport considerations, and in fairness to myself I must further point out that it was the right hon. Gentleman's own Government which put these canals under the control of the Transport Commission.

Mr. Harrison: Will the Minister direct the attention of the British Transport Commission particularly to the urgent question of the use of derelict canals, which is a very distressing problem?

Bicycles (Pedal Reflectors)

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the recent amendments to existing regulations made by him, he will now consider making legal the use of amber cats-eye reflectors on the pedals of bicycles.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Pedal reflectors are legal provided they do not reflect a red light to the front or other than a red light to the rear. I should be glad if cyclists would, within these limits, try them out. Amber lights, however, might well mislead motorists.

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the report of actual road tests made of these pedal reflectors by the chief constable of Rochdale shows them to be highly effective? Would not he also agree that road safety at night would be greatly increased by the use of these pedals, and also that it is


quite impossible to have any pedal showing a red light to the rear and a white light in front?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Very great dangers are involved in trying to make this type of pedal compulsory. The danger about an amber light is the difficulty of telling whether the cyclist is coming or going, but I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with my bon. and gallant Friend.

Heavy Vehicles, Whetstone

Sir J. Crowder: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made with the proposals put forward at the meeting attended by his divisional road engineer and the local authorities concerned in July, 1952, to encourage drivers of heavy vehicles to use the Barnet by-pass instead of the road through Whetstone, and to prevent the parking of heavy lorries in Whetstone at night.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry that little progress has been made with this difficult problem. As the Finchley Borough Council was informed on the 27th August, 1952, the only practical solution seems to be the provision of sufficient café facilities on the Barnet bypass to attract lorry drivers to that route. This is a matter for the local authorities and interests concerned.

Road Accidents (Children)

Mr. Usborne: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what information he has to show in how many of the road accidents in the United Kingdom, in each of the last five years, in which children were involved, the child was running at the time of the accident.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I regret that I cannot supply the hon. Member with the precise information that he requires, but he will find in "Road Accidents, 1951," and "Road Accidents, 1952"—Tables 30 and 32—a great deal of detailed information about accidents to children.

Mr. Usborne: Would the Minister agree that when children run across the road there is a greater likelihood of an accident than if they walk very slowly across it? Is he aware of that fact, and does he think that sufficient emphasis is being given to it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is perfectly true. I would again commend to the House the wonderful achievement in Islington, where no child has been killed during the last two years, largely through local leadership and initiative.

Mr. Usborne: May that not be because they teach the schoolchildren in Islington that it is wrong ever to run across the road?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Whatever they teach them, it is effective.

Mr. Page: Is the Minister aware that the suggestion that it is fair game to shoot a bird on the wing is understating the obligations of the motorist, and that the motorist should expect to encounter, and be prepared to avoid, not only the impetuous child but the hesitant old lady?

Mr. Usborne: In view of the suggestion that birds may be shot on the wing, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every year a mother mallard, with her chicks, waddles so slowly across the roads in London that she is never hurt?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we had a Minister of Natural History, that might be an appropriate question for him.

Speed Limit Derestriction (Public Inquiries)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many public Ministerial inquiries concerning speed-limit derestriction of a road were held in 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953; and in how many of these cases in each of these years a speed limit was imposed or confirmed following upon such an inquiry.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Page: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would extend this system of public inquiry to the London traffic area so that the public might make representations to the London Traffic Advisory Committee on derestriction of the speed limit?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would point out to my hon. Friend what I am sure he knows, that there is a great danger in extending this restriction so far that


ordinary, reasonable people think it unreasonable. Already 36 per cent, of our unclassified, 17 per cent, of our classified, and over 17 per cent, of our trunk roads are so restricted, and there is a limit beyond which prudence should not go.

Following is the information:


Year
Number of inquiries
Number of lengths of road
Number of lengths on which it was decided to retain the speed limit


1949
3
4
2


1950
7
7
—


1951
3
3
2


1952
4
4
—


1953
5
5
1

Road Haulage Units (Sale)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the result of the first offer for sale of transport units by the Road Haulage Disposal Board.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The final figures for the first two lists are 432 units sold, representing 1,286 vehicles.

Mr. Sparks: In view of the complete failure to find sufficient customers to make offers for these vehicles at anything near their market value, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that the vehicles which are now left over will not be given away?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Many of the premises are inactive, or have been inactive, and it will be necessary for the vehicles and the premises to be offered separately. I sympathise with hon. Gentlemen opposite in their dilemma: whether to attack me for selling the vehicles too slowly or for selling them too fast, without regard to their price.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it the case that the Minister is now making himself responsible for the sale—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case why did he say that? May I ask him whether the sale of these units by the British Transport Commission—not, of course, by himself—is living up to his expectations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think we had better wait and see how we get along. I cannot do better than accept the view of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) that I have no status in the matter unless a dispute arises.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In that case, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will not listen to the representations made by the Road Haulage Association that he should accept the highest bid, even when only two or three tenders are put in?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman, who has already twice or three times postponed a Question on that point, may be luckier today.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sums received to date reflect very adequately the arrangements made as between a willing buyer and a willing seller—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—and surely that is the essence of the contract?

Mr. Davies: Since when was the Commission a willing seller of the road haulage undertaking?

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Minister on what he bases his estimate that 10,000 of these vehicles will have been sold by the end of April?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On every expectation—when I gave out my estimated programme, and I stick to the view—that we shall make rapid progress in this matter without great loss to the nation or an undue disturbance of the national transport system.

Parking

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will introduce a regulation to make it an offence for vehicles to draw across to the right-hand side of the highway and park facing towards oncoming traffic.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is already an offence at night, but I do not think it is necessary to impose a similar restriction in daylight.

Mr. Spence: May I ask the Minister whether he will ask the police to make an investigation into the cause of accidents to see to what extent drawing over


to the right side of the road and facing oncoming traffic is the cause of many accidents today?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are constantly looking at that, and I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Driving Test, London Area

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what pro portion of driving tests in the London area resulted in failures during the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; and how these compared with the preceding three comparable periods.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: From 1st March, 1953, to 27th February, 1954, the percentage of candidates failing the driving test in the Metropolitan traffic area was 4075. The figure for the corresponding period in 1952–53 was 39–82, for 1951–52 38–25, and for 1950–51 3704.

Mr. Price: Does my right hon. Friend attach any significance to the fact that this percentage is going up year by year?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the answer is that in this, as in other fields where there is a steep increase in the number of candidates, there is a falling off in the average standard.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the falling off in London is similar to the falling off in other parts of the country? Are London drivers, or would-be drivers, worse than provincial drivers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think so.

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the delay at present, in the London area, between an application for a driving test and the test itself.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the Metropolitan traffic area, about six weeks.

Mr. Price: If I give my right hon. Friend details of a case in which a constituent was asked to wait three months, and who, upon protest, was penalised by having to wait an extra week, will my right hon. Friend take steps to investigate it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Immediately, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Severn Bridge Project (Approach Roads)

The Rev. LI. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent his Department has provided the respective planning authorities with the information necessary for the inclusion of provisions for approach roads in the plans for the proposed Severn Bridge.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Orders under the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, were made in 1947 and 1948 laying down the lines of these roads, and Section 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, has the effect of incorporating the provisions of such Orders in development plans.

North-East Division

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will indicate on what schemes and in which administrative areas of his northeast division the sum of over £1 million of Exchequer money is being spent.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I regret that I cannot very well give this information until the necessary consultations with local highway authorities have been completed and the schemes finally selected.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information which he gave on 15th February refers to the East and West Riding of Yorkshire, and that in the North Riding, in Durham and in Northumberland there is not a single major scheme in the three-year programme? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It depends on what one regards as a major scheme. Question No. 56 relates to my receiving a deputation from the area, and I shall be glad to argue it out with them.

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he proposes to accede to the request of highway authorities in the north-east division of his Department, to see the deputation which they have asked him to meet.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As soon as possible, Sir.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to the local authorities in Durham, an application has been made to him since 20th January to receive some North-Eastern M.P.S to discuss the same problem, and that they are still awaiting a reply?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is certainly not true. If I received every deputation which wants to talk to me about roads, I should be doing nothing else. However, I am in touch with the hon. Members concerned and I shall be glad to receive a deputation from the North-Eastern area—I hope it will be one deputation instead of the three suggested—as soon as that can possibly be arranged.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the bad and mischievous activities of the Minister in a number of directions—

Mr. Nabarro: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Morrison: —would it not be in the public interest if he would confine himself to receiving deputations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had listened as patiently to the views of the public as I have done since being Minister, we would not have been in the mess in which they left us.

Flashing Headlights

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in the next edition of the Highway Code, he will discourage the practice of some drivers of flashing headlights on and off before overtaking, as it is disconcerting to the driver being overtaken and dazzling to traffic travelling in the opposite direction.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think this would be wrong. The Committee on Road Safety has advised that, provided headlights are properly aimed, this practice is useful and assists road safety.

Trunk Road, Kincardine-on-Porth (Lighting)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the estimated cost of lighting the trunk road through the village of Kincardine-on-Forth, Fife; and what factors are preventing him from proceeding with this scheme.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Two thousand five hundred pounds, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot make a contribution to the cost

of this scheme in the immediate future because the funds which I have available are required at present for schemes of higher priority.

Mr. Hamilton: Why does the Minister display this anti-Scottish attitude so blatantly? Is he aware that in my constituency we have a bridge and no lights at one end, and lights and no bridge at the other end? Can he not do something about it very quickly?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall be always glad, in this and in other ways, to throw more light on the hon. Member's constituency, but I cannot make exceptions for one place rather than another.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR MAINTENANCE BASE, RENFREW

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to give effect to the resolution on the future of Renfrew air base which has been sent to him by the Renfrewshire Federation of Labour Parties.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The management of British European Airways and representatives of the trade unions concerned are still in consultation on this matter through the machinery of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. We must not, of course, interfere with the recognised machinery for joint consultation.

Mr. Rankin: I accept that, but is the Minister aware that this letter in my hand indicates the widespread discontent in Scotland over the proposal to transfer the maintenance base at Renfrew to London Airport? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that there is a widespread feeling that, although there is a case for its retention at Renfrew on strategic grounds, there is no case whatever on economical grounds for its removal?

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the impact on Scottish industry and employment of the closing of the Renfrew maintenance base, but these matters have already been discussed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Government Departments concerned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House.)—[Mr. Crook-shank.]

Ordered,
That the Luton Corporation Bill set down for consideration at Seven of the Clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after Nine o'clock though opposed.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

THEATRICAL COMPANIES

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control non-profit making theatrical companies.
That need for this Bill arises out of the way in which some people have been operating Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946. This Section lays down that any play which is performed or put on by a non-profit making company whose objects and aims are partly educational may be exempted from the payment of Entertainments Duty. This provision in the 1946 Budget has produced excellent results in many ways in the theatre in Britain. As a result, we have seen more of Shakespeare in good productions and we have seen more of the classics.
The principal non-profit making company enjoying this Entertainments Duty concession in London is called Tennent Productions, Limited, which has done extremely good work in improving the standard of theatrical production. If the people who ran this non-profit making company were to confine themselves to their non-profit making company, there would be no complaint whatever; but they do not do so.
There is another company called by a strangely similar name, H. M. Tennent, Limited—a profit-making company. The two companies—the profit-making company and the non-profit-making company —share the same principal director, a Mr. Hugh Beaumont, who also happens to be the largest shareholder of the profit-making company. By skilful use of the law which allows this Entertainments Duty concession, Mr. Beaumont has built up his profit-making company on very substantial lines and has created a great theatrical empire.
It is done very easily. The Finance Act, 1946, says that a non-profit-making company enjoying this concession must be partly educational, but only partly educational, because the losses on many of the educational productions have to be offset by other means. That is why there have been performed or put on by the non-profit-making company such plays as "Waters of the Moon," which ran for over two years without paying Entertainments Duty, "A Street Car Named Desire," or a play by Miss Daphne Du Maurier called "September Tide," and even a revue.
Today, the principal example of this type is a play called "A Day by the Sea," which is running at the Haymarket Theatre and has in its cast three Knights and a Dame—Sir John Gielgud, Sir Ralph Richardson, Sir Lewis Casson and Dame Sybil Thorndike. The use of these obviously non-educational plays has enabled great reserves to be built up for the non-profit-making company, but it also has done a great deal more.
With "A Day by the Sea," for example, this is what is happening. In the Haymarket Theatre the prices of the seats for this production have been put up, so that the stalls now cost 16s. 6d. and the dress circle seats now cost 13s. 6d., this in spite of the fact that no Entertainments Duty whatever has to be paid. The production is earning well over £3,000 a week. The Entertainments Duty, which in the normal way would be going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is in the region of £500 a week, but because of this concession it does not leave the theatre. It is used to make the production better and bigger and also to pay the actors far more substantial salaries. That is why the company has been able to concentrate these three very distinguished male actors and one very distinguished lady actor in this theatre.
This enables also the non-profit making company to take the best actors away from other managements and use them for themselves until they want to put them into the plays run by the profit-making company. It prevents other managements from getting into any theatre that is being operated by the non-profit making company; and there is, of course, keen competition for the best theatres in London, and the Haymarket in particular.
By the use of this concession, one or other of the Tennent firms; H. M. Tennent, Ltd., or Tennent Productions, Ltd., has been in possession of the Hay-market Theatre for over five and a half years. At a suitable moment, the actors now retained by the non-profit making company can be switched to the profit-making company.
Each play which is put on by the nonprofit making company pays £40 a week in management fees to the profit-making company, and sometimes there are as many as seven of these plays running in London at once: in other words £280 a week is then paid by the non-profit making company to the profit-making company as a managerial fee.
Today, there are three such plays put on by Tennent Productions, Ltd., running in London and in a few weeks two more will be coming to London. Five of these plays, therefore, will be paying H. M. Tennent, Ltd., the profit-making company, some £200 a week, and not one of these plays can be called in any way educational. Roughly, £10,000 a year is earned in management fees by the profit-making company by this means. This comfortably pays the staff salaries, the office expenses and the premises for the profit-making company, which is then able to go into business against its rivals, the other commercial firms, with a substantial base provided by the taxpayer.
It is interesting to note that in a recent balance sheet the profits of the profit-making company, after payment of very substantial directors' fees, amounted to £8,000, the almost exact equivalent of the management fees that they were receiving from the non-profit making company.
In all, in a few weeks' time Mr. Beaumont, in either his non-profit making or his profit-making capacity, will be in charge of 10 productions on the London stage; five profit making productions run by H. M. Tennent, Ltd., are already going in London today. So he will be in charge of 10 productions in one form or another. Sometimes Mr. Beaumont has more than 10—the number has been up to as many as 15 at one time—and they are always at the best theatres in London and always with the best actors. Other managements and producers are rapidly being squeezed out by the operation of this growing monopoly.
As a consequence, many independent managers who have worth-while plays to perform cannot secure the services of a prominent actor, because Mr. Beaumont has already bought him for his profit making company or for his non-profit making company. That is why there are four who are perhaps the most distinguished actors on the British stage today all performing at the Haymarket in a play which is not educational and, in my opinion, is not very good. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is tripe."] As one of my hon. Friends has said, it is tripe.
This operation of the non-profit making company enables it to make higher bids for plays. For example, when "A Street Car Named Desire," which came from America, was on offer in London it was the non-profit making company of Tennents which made the highest bid and prevented any other management from getting it. It could afford to do this having no Income Tax to pay, no Entertainments Duty to pay, and not having to bother about profit. It could prevent any rival commercial management from having the opportunity to make money out of that play. In the provinces the best theatres in large towns also go to Tennent Productions Limited, the non-profit making company, because that company does not have to worry about Income Tax, nor profits, and can offer better terms, productions and stars than commercial companies, thus further crippling commercial rivals.
I have nothing against Mr. Beaumont personally. I understand that in his business dealings he is a man of the highest possible integrity and that he has always honoured any engagements entered into with the Arts Council with scrupulous exactness. But the point is that he is very cleverly and skillfully using a concession which was intended for another purpose to build himself up as the greatest theatrical impressario in London and operating what is nothing less than a capitalist monopoly. I realise that while we have a capitalist system we shall always have monopolies, but I do not think it is the intention of anyone, on either side of the House, that Parliament should contribute to the creation of private monopolies. Consequently, I want to make some alterations in the law on this matter.
I do not propose that the Entertainments Duty concession as laid down in


the 1946 Finance Act should be taken away from non-profit making companies. I think it is right and good that people should be encouraged to put on good productions of plays which are a part of our national heritage, even though they cannot be expected to make a profit; and that they should be assisted in so doing. That is very important and has been of great benefit to the theatre. I hope it will continue to be so in the future.
What I do propose is that any director or principal official of a non-profit making company may not also be employed or have a financial interest in a profit making company. In other words, the non-profit making companies should live and be of themselves and do the particular job they set out to do without buttressing a profit making company. I also propose that a non-profit making company must run its own affairs entirely and not be allowed to pay a management fee in respect of any of its plays to a profit making company.
The profits of Tennent Productions, Limited—the non-profit making company—have been very substantial. The value of the tax concession must be at least £50,000 a year to them, if not more, and it can well afford to run its own affairs out of its own profits without paying something to an associated profit-making company.
I believe that if a Bill were introduced along these lines, the intention of Parliament that help should be given to the production of plays which are a part of our national heritage without profit being made, directly or indirectly, by the promoters, will then be honoured and not frustrated as it is today.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) rise to oppose the Motion?

Mr. Silverman: Yes, Sir. I had no idea what was in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) when I saw his Motion on the Order Paper giving notice of this Bill. I came into the House with a completely open mind having a bias, if any bias at all, in favour of supposing that my hon. Friend, who is an extremely intelligent

person, would probably be right. I am bound to say that, as a result of his speech, I have come to the conclusion that he is wrong. I find myself completely unable to understand his approach to this matter.
If I understood his speech correctly— or one part of it—he appeared to be saying that if there were a monopoly in entertainment it would be better if it made a profit and distributed profits to shareholders than if it were a non-profit making undertaking. That, at any rate, he seemed to be saying in one part of his speech—

Mr. Wyatt: No.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend said it quite clearly; I know we cannot debate it at any length, but that is the impression he left on my mind and, I think, on the minds of many others. Another impression he left very firmly on my mind was that he thought no play ought to be put on by a non-profit making company unless it was already part of our national cultural heritage.

Mr. Wyatt: I did not say that.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend says that he did not say that either. I listened to what he said and I am saying that that is the impression he made upon me. He used the exact phrase, "national heritage." A heritage is usually what one inherits from someone who dies and the usual connotation of the phrase is that our national heritage includes what has been handed down to us and not the products of our own age, which may in future become part of that heritage. I am relieved to hear that my hon. Friend did not intend to convey that impression, but I can assure him that if he looks at his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will realise that there was good reason for it to have left that impression on the minds of his hearers.
My hon. Friend proceeded to cite a particular play. He said that he had no personal feeling or bias—I have forgotten which word he used—against a certain Mr. Beaumont. I have none, because I never heard Mr. Beaumont's name until my hon. Friend made his speech. My hon. Friend spoke in slighting terms of a particular play at the Haymarket as though it were a work of no importance and no one could ever suppose that


it ever was or ever could become part of the national cultural heritage of this country—that it was a bad play and that the use of this machinery, exempting it from Entertainments Duty, and conferring financial advantage upon this play was an obvious and incontrovertible example of an abuse of the purpose of these concessions.
Matters of taste are matters of taste and it is an old principle that it is useless to argue about them. I can only say that I happened to see this play and that I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I consider it an extremely good play. If there are a number of people willing to pay high prices to see it, that is a great compliment to the improving taste of the theatre-going public. Instead of bemoaning that fact, my hon. Friend ought to rejoice at it.
If my hon. Friend had a point in his speech at all, it seemed to be that there may in some cases be an abuse of this Entertainments Duty concession. If there is such an abuse each case ought to be dealt with on its merits and examined impartially on its merits. If a play is bad, let objection be taken to it. But, because there may be instances where abuses can be proved, to bring in a Bill which would have a completely crippling and paralysing effect on every attempt to encourage real theatre in this country by non-profit making companies seems to me to be completely out of proportion. I hope that the House will not give a First Reading to this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Crosland, Mr. Foot, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Mellish and Mr. Hobson.

THEATRICAL COMPANIES BILL

to control non-profit making theatrical companies," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd April, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.50 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to carry into effect the increase in the pensions of certain civil servants who are affected by the stabilisation of 1935 which has already been announced in the White Paper, Cmd. 9092, which was laid before this House a few days ago. This Bill, of course, deals only with the case of civil servants affected by these changes. The members of the Armed Forces, in respect of whom similar treatment is being provided, are, of course, dealt with under Prerogative Instruments.
This Bill is required because the pensions of civil servants, unlike those of the Armed Forces, require legislation. Perhaps, however, I may be allowed to announce—ifor it has not already been announced—that retired officers holding King's Commissions in the late Indian Armed Forces will also receive corresponding benefits under a separate Prerogative Instrument. That was not announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence in the Defence debate, but, as the decision has been taken, I am sure it would be the wish of the House that these people should know their position.
The Bill itself, as hon. Members who have studied it will appreciate, is of commendable brevity. The subject, however, as the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) will agree is of appalling intricacy, and it would help the House to understand what is proposed if for a moment or so I sketch in the background.
Civil servants' pensions, unlike those of members of the Armed Forces, are not based on a separate pensions code, but, broadly speaking, upon certain proportions—depending on length of service —of the salaries earned in the last three years before retirement. As a consequence of that, which has been the position under Civil Service superannunation law for


many years, the fact that after the First World War Civil Service salaries contained an element of cost of living bonus operated also on their pensions. Pensions are governed by salary, and as total salary included an element of cost of living bonus, the cost of living bonus operated indirectly on pensions.
Another fact affecting pensions of the civil servants with whom we are concerned was that in 1921 there was imposed what was described as a "super cut" under which cost of living bonus was cut out altogether in respect of certain senior levels of civil servants and reduced in respect of a good many more. That "super cut," by reducing the salary, also had its effect upon the pension.
The next stage was the Treasury Minute of 20th March, 1922, which, for some odd reason, took effect as from 21st February, 1922. That Treasury Minute laid it down that that part of a civil servant's pension which was based on the cost of living element in his retiring salary should itself move in either direction with the cost of living.
This somewhat complex series of arrangements is set out with considerable clarity, and, I regret to say, at some length in paragraphs 8 to 25 of the White Paper to which I have already referred. The effect of these arrangements was that the fluctuations in the cost of living operated somewhat differently on the pensions of civil servants as compared with those of members of the Armed Forces, for, as I have tried to explain to the House, the cost of living operated on that part of a civil servant's pension which was based on the cost of living bonus element in his salary.
The proportion which that bonus element bore to the total salary varied from grade to grade and, consequently, the alteration which alterations in the cost of living effected in the salary did not result, as with the Armed Forces, in a completely even, proportionate reduction or increase as the cost of living moved, but in a very wide variety of change in the percentage movement of the civil servant's salary.
Perhaps that is best illustrated—it is a somewhat complex state of affairs—by the fact that when the 1935 stabilisation

took place the pensions of all members of the Armed Forces affected were 9½ per cent, below the 1919 level of pensions. The reduction in the pensions of civil servants, however, was as a result of this a wholly different variety of percentage reductions on the 1922 level. They run out, in extreme cases, to a reduction of 24 per cent., while other reductions are well below 9½per cent.
I thought I ought to explain that to the House because while both the members of the Armed Forces and civil servants were affected by the 1935 stabilisation, they were affected in a different way inasmuch as the Armed Forces pension was down by a definite overall percentage on 1919, whereas the Civil Service pension was down by a whole variety of percentages on 1922.
The next stage of the background is the consolidation itself which took place both for civil servants and for members of the Armed Forces, in 1935. It was based, as the House knows, on a decision announced by the then Government in 1932, and that decision, so far as the Civil Service was concerned, was based on a recommendation of the Tomlin Royal Commission which sat at that time to consider Civil Service pensions.
Both for civil servants and for members of the Armed Forces restoration of those reductions has, in part, been affected by the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944 and 1947. Under those Acts, both pensioners of the Armed Forces and pensioners of the Civil Service have been dealt with. Broadly, the effect of those Acts, so far as the people with whom we are dealing are concerned—and, in particular, I am concerned with Section 2 of the Act of 1944 as amended by the Act of 1947—has been to restore the full 10 per cent, in respect of all pensions of under £400 a year, and something less than 10 per cent, of all pensions between £400 and the rather odd figure of £787 10s. Above £787 10s., nothing has been restored.
As hon. Members will see from the terms of the Bill, it is based on the foundation of Section 2 of the Act of 1944 as amended in 1947, and is, indeed, framed as an amendment to those Statutes. The substance of the Bill is really to complete the work of those Acts, that is, to ensure that under those Acts


and this Bill taken together everyone, including in this Bill now the higher ranges, shall get a 10 per cent, increase above the 1935 stabilisation level.
To put it another way, those who have already had their 10 per cent, back under the previous Acts get nothing under the Bill, those who got less than 10 per cent, back under the previous Acts get whatever the figure is made up to 10 per cent., and those who had nothing under the previous Acts get the full 10 per cent, under the Bill. The Bill can really be looked at as completing the work of the Section 2 side of the 1944 Act as subsequently amended.
As hon. Members of a mathematical frame of mind will have worked out, this is not a restoration of the 9½ per cent. reduction which applied to the Armed Forces. As I said, different percentages applied to the Civil Service. It is a mathematical fact that 10 per cent, of 90.5 is not the same as 9£ per cent, of 100. The difference is small, but this is not a restoration, and the figures will therefore, not precisely coincide.
Nor does the Bill embody the restoration of the 1919 or 1922 systems. That is to say, it is not proposed to restore the systems operating for a good many years between the two wars under which public service pensions moved up or down with the cost of living. Experience showed how unsatisfactory such a system was and what intense ill-feeling and difficulty it gave rise to. I ought to make it clear at this stage that the proposal is not to restore either the 1919 or the 1922 systems.
What the Bill does is to go some way to meet the point that the 1935 stabilisation did, in the event, operate somewhat severely on those who had worked or retired under the old system under which pensions moved with the cost of living
I want to make clear who are affected by the Bill. It does not affect the pensions of those who retired before 21st February, 1922. That is the date which the Treasury Minute to which I made reference provided as the date for the introduction of the system of variation of Civil Service pensions with the cost of living. Neither does it affect anyone who retired after 31st March, 1949. That is because anyone who retired after that

date retired after three years, which is the full averaging period, on the postwar rates of Civil Service salary and was, therefore, not really affected by the 1922 and 1935 systems.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: Could my right hon. Friend deal with the cognate position of retired officers? They were not affected by the Treasury Minute to which he referred. May I take it that these date limitations will not apply to them when the necessary warrants are being drafted in their case?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am dealing only with the Bill, which deals only with the position of civil servants. I know that my hon. and learned Friend is particularly concerned about the members of the Armed Forces, but I do not think I should be in order to discuss—nor should I be called upon to do so—what will be in the Prerogative Instruments which will be produced by my right hon. Friends and in one case, my noble Friend, the Ministers in charge of the Service Departments.
The dates are fixed on the basis of Civil Service pensions, and it is to them that my argument relates. Indeed, the justification for them is, as my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, that after the final terminal date of 31st March, 1949, anyone retiring will have the full benefit reflected in pension of the increase in Civil Service salaries made after the war.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The date given in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum is 1st April, 1947. I realise that there has to be an average of three years, and I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is taking that into account, but he has several times mentioned a date in 1949. No doubt he is right, but perhaps he would explain why that is.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, he will see— its language is perhaps not as clear as it might be—that the final sentence of the main paragraph refers to
…an average rate of emoluments over a period of service beginning on or after 1st April, 1946…
The position is that nobody retiring after 31st March, 1949, will benefit under the Bill. There is a tapering arrangement;


otherwise, people retiring on certain dates would get an unfair benefit as against others. It is a very complicated matter, but I gather that the right hon. Gentleman understands it.
As the White Paper indicates, the best possible calculation that we can make of the number of civil servants affected is about 3,000. I must explain to the House why it is, regrettably, impossible to give a precise figure. As I have already explained, the Civil Service pension is not based on a firm code. It is not like that in the Armed Forces for, say, a major or a lieutenant-colonel. It depends on a formula of retiring salary, or salary during the last three years, and length of service.
There are also various factors which affect whether or not a civil servant will come within the benefits of the Bill. One of those is whether his salary, and, therefore, his pension, was increased by war bonus during the 1939–45 war. It is impossible, without taking each case, literally one by one, to give the House a precise figure. No one regrets that more than I do, but I should be less than frank with the House if I did not say why it was. The best figure that we can get is about 3,000, and the best figure that we can obtain, based on that, of the cost to the taxpayer is, with the same calculation, about £60,000.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a tentative figure for the capital value of these concessions? The figure will be determined not only by the salaries, but also by the respective ages of the people who are to receive the concessions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That would involve an even more detailed analysis case by case. As I understand the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman, one would have to take the ages of the recipients, and calculate the figure against expectation of life tables current at the moment in respect of people of those ages. Though I will consider that, it seems to me in the highest degree improbable that I could produce a figure which would be of great value. In any event, my first reaction is that it would involve calculations on the basis of the facts of each recipient, and that would involve a great deal of work.

Mr. Price: The figures are relatively small in this case because the right hon. Gentleman said that only about 3,000 people would be affected. I do not think it would be a good thing for the House to allow a transaction of this kind to go by unnoticed. Apparently, no real actuarial advice has been submitted to the House. If we were dealing with 30,000 people instead of 3,000, I should certainly require to know what the capital cost would be. Has the Government Actuary submitted any figures?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take the hon. Member's point. From our point of view, it is not a matter on which an actuarial calculation of the capital value would be very helpful, because, as I am explaining, the step is taken for somewhat different reasons. If such a figure can be obtained without putting undue work on public servants, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish, I will endeavour to give it to him at a later stage of the Bill.
As I have explained, some of the 3,000 will get a small benefit on the basis that they have already had the greater part of the 10 per cent, back, and others will receive the full 10 per cent. A number of payments will be quite small. The theoretical maximum to which they could go in any one case would be £150. That would be in the case of the retired permanent secretary with 40 years' service. Frankly, I am not in a position to say that there is an actual case current at the moment, but that is the theoretical maximum.
As I have already indicated, this does not embody a return to the 1922 system but is rather a measure of relief to people affected by the termination of the 1922 system. Nor does it involve a departure from the general principles affecting public service pensions, which have been followed over a number of years by a succession of Governments. Those principles are set out with considerable force and clarity in paragraphs 36 to 39 of the White Paper, and I need only summarise them in this way.
I would say that the normal principle of these Crown pensions is that, in the Civil Service, they are based on salaries. In the event of a serious fall in the value of money, the line taken by a succession of Governments—by the Coalition Government in 1944, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Colne


Valley in 1947, and by the present Administration in 1952—has been to concentrate on the lower levels of the scale what relief it is possible to give.
That was, in fact, the line taken in Section 1 of the 1944 Act and in subsequent Acts. The fact that in this case relief is being given to persons higher in the scale is due to the very peculiar and special circumstances of these people having served under another system which shifted with the cost of living and who, as the event proved, have found that the termination of that system in 1935 has borne rather hardly on them.
The Bill itself, as I hope I have already made clear, is framed as an amendment to the 1944 and 1947 Acts. Clause 1 (1) operates simply to remove the limit of pensions in respect of which the increase is given. That is to say, it abolishes the £787 10s. limit which the 1944 Act, as amended, provided. The effect is to secure that to the extent that Civil Service pensions based on pre-war scales have not been increased by 10 per cent, they shall be increased up to that figure.
The House may be interested to know how this operates. Broadly, it will give about 2½per cent, increase to most of those whose original pension was between £400 and £600. That is because they have already had back 7½per cent. It will give 5 per cent, on pensions between £600 and £750, because, broadly, they have had back 5 per cent. It will give 5 to 10 per cent, on the quite small number of those pensions between £750 and £787 10s., and possibly the whole 10 per cent, above that.
Clause 1 (2) simply repeals Section 1 (3) of the 1947 Act which this Act replaces. Clause 1 (3) provides for the change to operate as from 1st April this year. If the House approves this Bill it will take effect—in the sense of making the increases—as from 1st April. It will not, of course, be possible for these payments to be made on 1st April, but if the House approves the Bill I understand that it will be possible for the payments made under it as from 1st April to be paid at any rate by the early summer.
The Bill introduces no changes in the general principles affecting public pensions. It is a modest attempt to do

something to meet the deep sense of grievance which a number of retired Crown servants feel because the 1935 stabilisation turned out unfortunately for them. The House will realise that in present circumstances there are difficulties greeting any money claim made upon the taxpayer. But I hope that this Bill will demonstrate the willingness of the State to meet in some measure a grievance which some of its old servants—is a rather special position and in rather peculiar circumstances—feel at the way things turned out for them.

Sir Ian Fraser: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend in his peroration, but before he concludes could he make it clear whether the means tests which were an essential part of the two Acts are now removed for all—not only the new categories coming in but the old ones as well?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was very adroit of my hon. Friend to diagnose that I was embarking on my peroration.
This provision deals with one half of the pensions increase field. It deals with what one might call the automatic increases—that is, the increases originally made at the lower levels under Section 2 of the 1944 Act to which I have referred. It deals with those who suffered a reduction under the 1935 stabilisation. The other half of pensions increase to which, as my hon. Friend has said, means tests are applied, is broadly the hardship side of pensions.
That is based on the principle that, in general, in those cases of public pensions, relief has, under a succession of Governments been concentrated upon those at the lower end of the scale. This provision does not affect either the amount of those hardship pensions or the conditions under which they are given. It relates to the other category whose claim for attention is that they suffered from the 1935 stabilisation. It does not deal in any way with what I broadly call the hardship cases.
As I was saying, this Bill deals with quite a separate case. There is a small section of former Crown servants who, as hon. Members know, feel deeply that the way in which things worked out for them after 1935 has given them very


special grounds for complaint. It is certainly true that things did not work out well for them. The circumstances are special or peculiar. I should have thought that they were very unlikely to recur, as we are not introducing, or re-introducing pensions moving with the cost of living. It therefore seems right to make some contribution, at any rate, towards meeting their grievance, and perhaps in so doing to introduce a little human feeling into the necessarily impersonal operation of the great administrative machine.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sure that the whole House is greatly indebted to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the very lucid explanation he has given of the atmosphere in which this Bill has been founded, and the situation upon which it has been based.
I agree with him that this is a very complex subject. I am one of very many still in the House who remember the introduction of the 1944 Bill by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Lord Waverley. He was ably assisted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton)—who I am sorry is unable to be in his place today—who then occupied the honourable and great position now occupied by the Financial Secretary.
The 1944 Act covered teachers, the Royal Irish Constabulary—who seem to crop up in quite a number of Measures which come before this House from time to time—and local government officials, as well as civil servants. But Section 2 to which attention is being drawn this afternoon applied only to civil servants. As I understand, only those who had suffered from the cuts—due to the fact that part of their salaries had been paid to them in the shape of war bonuses— could take advantage of Section 2 as an alternative. I assume that it must have helped very many of them because I understand that most of those who suffered cuts took advantage of that section.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that the 1944 Act was designed to relieve hardship caused to pensioners on small incomes as a result of a rise in the cost of living. This Bill is much more restricted in scope. As the Minister ex-

plained, it covers only civil servants, and only a very small section of civil servants. Therefore, while we on this side do not oppose the passage of this Measure, in fact, we heartily welcome it, we realise it for what it is, and that it does nothing for many thousands—I think their number is 100,000 at the present time—of people who are living on very small pensions, certainly those who are living on pensions below the maximum of £400. They are, as the Minister has indicated, outside the scope of the proposals of the Bill.
This Bill came as a great surprise to me, as it must have done to many other hon. Members of the House. It was not foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech as one of the great Measures which this Government intended to introduce this Session. In fact, judging by the pronouncements made by various Ministers in the House, including the Prime Minister himself, such a Bill was the last thing the House expected. The Financial Secretary, therefore, can imagine with what lively interest some of us looked forward to his Second Reading speech.
We have had, of course, the advantage of seeing the White Paper, Command 9092, which has been presented by him. I do not know whether he wrote it himself or whether, as so often happens, it has been fathered upon him by Treasury officials. I have not the slightest doubt, however, because of the great interest aroused in this matter, that the White Paper must have been scanned by most members of the Government, including the Prime Minister himself.
Whoever is the author or authors of it, it really is an astonishing document. We have realised for some time that Ministers, led by the Minister of Transport, are supreme actors in this particular field. They are always publishing White Papers. Whether any particular White Paper is to be the final word on the subject it is usually impossible to say, because, more often than not it is shortly followed by another which contradicts the one immediately preceding it. But in this White Paper they certainly surpass themselves.
This is a one Clause Bill, although for at least 3,000 people it will have a far-reaching effect. But it seems to some of us that to produce a White Paper running, as it does, to nearly 12 pages for a Bill of this kind is an astonishing thing, par-


ticularly as three-quarters of the White Paper is dedicated to the task of showing that nothing whatever ought to be done in this particular field, and that nothing further is to be done and then ends by indicating that although the arguments against doing anything are so strong as to be unanswerable, nevertheless the Government propose to do something.
We cannot, on this side, believe that the Bill has been produced because the Government have at long last seen that an injustice has been done to a number of civil servants. I think we all know that this Bill is the result of the pressure which has been brought to bear on the Government and doubtless on individual Ministers in that Government, including some pressure by retired officers themselves who are drawing their pensions under the 1919 code.
They have, quite wrongly in my view —I think, the White Paper brings this out very clearly—accused the Government of broken faith. It may well be that the 9½ per cent, cut, having been made, should be restored but the charge that every Government since 1935 broke faith with this particular group of officers, is, I think, quite without foundation.
Whatever reasons there may be for producing this Bill or for giving the 10 per cent, to the officers who retired under the 1919 code, we on this side of the House approve and support the Bill as well as the Prerogative Instruments which will be presented later. Although we on this side are anxious to see the Bill on the Statute Book, we are also anxious to effect certain improvements in it. I ventured to interrupt the Financial Secretary when he was speaking to ask him whether, when he mentioned 31st March, 1949, he actually meant that date. If he is to reply to the debate later perhaps he will make it quite clear whether, when he spoke of 31st March, 1949, he was thinking of some tapering arrangement to offset one of the anomalies which this Bill will create, and which we on this side are anxious to see rectified before the end of the Committee stage.
I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said that this rectification is what the Government have in mind, and I also understand that it will be possible to do it by regulation and that neither the present Long Title of the Bill nor the Financial Resolution on the Order

Paper will prevent the Treasury from carrying out that undertaking. That answers one of the chief criticism which we have against this Measure.
Between now and the Committee stage there will be other matters which we desire to ventilate. Now is not the time and, therefore, I shall end by saying, as I said earlier, that this is a measure of tardy justice to a section of retired civil servants which, while it does not go as far as it might, does do something for a very deserving body of people. After all, during the period to which the Bill refers civil servants suffered 16 cuts in their pay. Retired officers never suffered the diminution of their pensions to anything like that amount. It may be that the Government had no real desire to put this injustice right, but they have been forced to do it by the pressure to which I have already referred. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: This Bill is only part of a larger operation, the other part of which is not carried out by legislation but by a Prerogative Instrument. However, there are certain principles common to both operations.
I want my right hon. Friend to consider, first, the position of those who have had increases under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, but which have not yet fully restored them to their pre-1935 rate, it seems to me that the Treasury has not yet fully realised that complete restoration is not being made in a large number of cases, because it has been represented that by the action decided upon by the Government what was previously lost has been fully restored. That is not so.
There are still a number of cases in which pensioners, in spite of having had increases under the 1944 Act, the 1947 Act and, possibly, also, the 1952 Act, are still not back to where they were. They have two grievances. One is that they are not back to where they were and the other is that in any event, if they are under the system under which they believe themselves to be, that is to say, the sliding scale system, they would have to go still further before they were back where they were.
I shall now give some figures which will not apply precisely to civil servants because their deductions were made


against bonuses, but I know of the case of an officer of the Armed Forces who was receiving £300 a year. The 9½ per cent, cut reduced that to £271 10s. He then received a total increase of 10 per cent, under the Pensions (Increase) Acts and is now receiving £298 13s. Although only by a small amount, he is now receiving less than his original pension of £300.
Although a large amount cannot be involved in such a case, it leaves a man with a considerable sense of grievance. I hope, therefore, that in the process of this legislation the Treasury will take care to ensure that every case is at least brought back to the amount of the original pension, because, otherwise, it is not accurate to say that the cut has been restored.
Taking the £300 a year man as an example again, the original arrangement was that he had his pension fixed at £300 and there was a tolerance of 20 per cent. either way which was adjustable with the cost of living, so that his pension could go down to a minimum of £240 or up to a maximum of £360. However, once the cost of living went up beyond that, he did not receive more than £360.
Again, therefore, it is a misconception to think that there has been anything like restoration. What the Pensions (Increase) Acts have done for the man in the lower scale is to restore his pension to about £300—taking that instance —but that does not satisfy this pensioner now. He does not say, "I have had my pension restored." He says, "My pension should now be £360." So what this decision has done in effect is to restore only about one-third of the original entitlement. Instead of 9½points or 10 points, something like 30 points is required to give the man what he had originally.
Those of us who have been interested in this matter and have pressed the Government about it are grateful that they have at last seen that we have reason on our side. I assure my right hon. Friend that we appreciate the fact that our case was listened to and that, to some degree, it has been met. However, I do not want my right hon. Friend to think that he could by any stretch of the imagination call this full restoration because it is not. Many of those affected will continue to feel some sense

of grievance, but those who have spoken to me about it are grateful that their case has been recognised. They are still more grateful for the fact that the Government have now agreed to do what, only three months ago, they said was impossible.
I do not denigrate that attitude, because it takes courage to admit that one is wrong. It is now recognised that what the Government said three or four months ago in the strongest terms could not possibly be done has now been done and I, for one, am always glad to see the impossible being done.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Honghton: I want to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) on the modesty with which he has received his victory. I think there must be a special explanation why there are not more of his hon. Friends on the benches opposite to share in the credit which is undoubtedly due to them and to him for the pressure brought to bear on the Government in this matter.
This is not the first time that pressure on behalf of retired officers of the Armed Forces has been the spearhead of a movement which has brought consequential benefit to civilian pensioners. I have never understood why retired officers should command such strong sentiment on the benches opposite when there is so little support, generally speaking, for civilian pensioners who, after all, have served their country in many cases longer, sometimes in conditions of equal danger, but who, strangely, are without friends when it comes to considering the conditions of their retirement.
I think I am right in my recollection in saying that the first Pensions (Increase) Bill after the war, in 1944, was built largely on the strength of feeling in the House about the position of retired officers of the forces, although it brought all the benefits to retired civil servants. And here this afternoon we are considering a Bill, which is, so to speak, consequential upon the major question which is not before the House, as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, because the procedure is different in connection with pension changes for the Armed Forces.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, this Bill does not give full restoration and there are some fine points of recalculation which we may have to go into when the Bill is considered in Committee. There is a background to this Bill which is of profound public importance, however, and that is how the provision for retirement is to be regarded as part and parcel of conditions of service.
Pension provision is part of the conditions of service. In appointing the recent Royal Commission on the pay and conditions of service of the Civil Service, presided over by Sir Raymond Priestley, the terms of reference were comprehensive. They linked pay, hours of work, holidays and pensions. The only limitation placed upon the consideration of pension was that it had to be looked at within the framework of the existing superannuation Acts.
A pension is a promisory note. It is an assurance of certain provision for retirement which must be accepted as part of the general conditions of service, and there is no doubt that the pension provision is regarded by all who enter the public service, in whatever branch they work, as an important feature of the conditions of service. Many a time, when trade unions in the Civil Service and when those representing public servants have discussed these matters with the Treasury or have gone to the arbitration tribunal, the value of the pension element in the conditions of service is regarded as an important feature of the case.
I think that the big question of policy which lies behind this Bill, as it has been behind the Pensions (Increase) Acts of the past, is to what extent does the employer, even though it may be the State, recognise some implied obligation towards the servant or worker or officer in regard to the standard of retirement provision which the money benefits are originally intended to give? There is no doubt that many civil servants feel themselves badly treated because, after a lifetime of service, when they have expected to have a certain standard of living provided by their pensions on retirement, they find that owing to the fall in the purchasing power of money and other economic changes, they are not getting what they expected to have and what

they regarded as a fundamental part of what they accepted in the first place as their conditions of service.
After all, those in the public service give up the glittering prizes of industry, commerce, financial operations and speculation for a steadier life, for something which is perhaps less trying to the nerves. It suits those of equable temperament, of a studious disposition and with a cautious aproach to all matters, for which successive Governments have reason to be grateful because they are saved many a time from impulsive action or rash decisions. Civil servants who undertake this solemn and often tedious duty do not claim from the State during their working lives excessive rewards for what they are doing.
After all, the highest paid official in the Civil Service is getting less for his services than many quite small traders such as grocers, butchers, garage proprietors, executives and directors of companies. The modest emoluments of those even in the higher ranges of the Civil Service certainly carry with them some obligation for the future. These people are given a reasonable working day from some points of view. I have no doubt that they may be regarded as having adequate, if not liberal, periods of leave, though in the higher ranges of the Civil Service pressure of work itself has robbed those benefits of their reality.
The pension arrangements are inseparable from the other conditions of service, and yet the Government—not only this Government but previous Governments—have tended to regard some restoration of the purchasing power of the pension as a matter of grace and as a thing normally to be given only to relieve conditions of hardship. That has been a great disappointment to the civil servants who occupy the middle and higher range posts in the public service and whose pensions were regarded as somewhat above the low water mark but were, nevertheless, from their point of view, quite inadequate to give them the standard of life which they felt they were entitled to regard during the whole of their service as an essential part of their conditions of service.
Under the 1944 Act as amended by the 1947 Act, there was a limit to the amount of pension which could enjoy an automatic percentage increase without


regard to family circumstances, marital status or other financial resources. Apart from that provision, the needs test came into operation. Under the 1944 Act as amended by the Act of 1947, the ceiling for the automatic increases on a progressively smaller percentage basis was £787 10s—this odd figure to which the Financial Secretary referred, which was the top of the escalator by the time the adjustments had been made to pensions up to £750 a year. Beyond that there was nothing.
Under this Bill the smaller percentages below 10 per cent, are lifted to 10 per cent, and the ceiling is lifted completely so that there is no need for an escalator Clause as part of these conditions under the new Bill, though provision is made to avoid an arbitrary distinction between retirement on one day and the next by providing that the percentage increase may be given to those who retired on an average rate of emolument over a period of service which began prior to 1st April, 1946.
As I understand, a civil servant who retired any time up to 31st March, 1949, may be covered by the provisions of the Bill unless it so happened that he was not on an averaging basis and was given a pension basis on emoluments received before April, 1947. I hope that that is quite clear, and that there will be no arbitrary anomaly as between a civil servant who retired on one date and a civil servant who retired on another.
I should like to continue for a moment on this general question to which I think further attention will have to be given. The Financial Secretary, in his admirably lucid explanation of a complicated subject—I know how complicated it is because I have been a member of the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council ever since this pension increase problem began—recalled that at one time after the First World War there was an arrangement whereby the cost-of-living bonus element of pension was subject to quarterly adjustment by reference to the average of the cost-of-living index figure, and he said how much that arrangement was criticised—that it was regarded as unsatisfactory by many pensioners not to know from one quarter to another what their pension would be, and that it was also undesirable from

the point of view of administration because it involved much recalculation of pensions.
I am not sure whether the Financial Secretary was absolutely right in saying that the Tomlin Commission of 1929–31 recommended specifically the discontinuance of that arrangement, though I agree entirely that the effect of that recommendation was to discontinue the arrangement. The Royal Commission of 1929–31 recommended the termination of the cost-of-living bonus arrangement in regard to salaries and the substitution of consolidation. It naturally followed from that that the periodical adjustment of pension rates by reference to the cost of living should also cease.
But what are we to do to safeguard the legitimate interests of those who have retired with pensions based on their rate of pay at the time of retirement, and who may be the helpless victims of economic change over which they have no control and against which they are manifestly helpless to exert trade union power for redress? Those in work at least have the power of negotiation through their trade unions to see that any hardship caused by economic changes should be remedied, as far as circumstances permit, by wage changes, but when a worker has once retired he no longer has that negotiating power. He depends almost entirely on the sympathetic approach of those who are responsible.
I do not know whether there is any possibility that the present Royal Commission, which I call the Priestley Commission, might consider the problem in its review of the conditions of the Civil Service generally. I understand that there may be some difficulty about certain matters connected with superannuation being put to the Commission. There may be some question whether the terms of reference permit the Royal Commission, if it sees fit, to consider some plan of adjustment of the retirement provisions in circumstances of economic change, variations of the price level, differences in wage rates or in conditions where there may be a signal improvement in the national income.
If the Priestley Commission is to be barred from considering what may be done about a pension once it has been fixed at the date of retirement, then it


is being unnecessarily inhibited from dealing comprehensively with conditions of the Civil Service as a whole. It is important that in looking at the conditions of service the full range of pension provision should come under review. I hope that the Financial Secretary will consider whether this is a matter which might suitably be within the terms of reference of the Commisssion. If it is not, we shall be faced with this kind of Bill—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): This is very important, but it is rather outside the Bill.

Mr. Houghton: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have just come back to the Bill. As you rose, I said that unless this were done we should be faced with this kind of Bill, one Bill after another. I am obliged to you for directing me to the next point in my speech.
Even now under the Bill, or outside it, there are civil servants who say, "What about those who retired after 1949 whose pension rates are already suffering from the ravages of changes since then?" Those who retired after 1949 can receive pension increases only if they go through the needs test and the limits provided by the Act of 1952. No civil servant who retired after 1949 can get any automatic adjustment in his pension. He must be subject to the hardship conditions of the 1952 Act.
I am certain that shortly we shall be hearing from retired civil servants—indeed, we are hearing from them already —to say that while the Bill is reasonably satisfactory as far as it goes, it does not go far enough. It does not go far enough in point of time. It cannot be complained that it does not go far enough in the range of pension, because there is no ceiling imposed on those who will qualify for the improvement under the Bill; but changes have taken place since 1949 in salary scales in the Civil Service, in wage rates outside and in the index of retail prices.
Already there is a noticeable deterioration in the value of the financial provision for those who retired after 1949 for whom no restoration is provided in the Bill. That underlines the need for a comprehensive approach to the problem on a policy basis, not leaving it to ad hoc changes, especially with the rather lengthy procedure of legislation in this House.
I come to my final point, which I believe to be of great importance. It is a question I have asked repeatedly. Why is it that to change one penny in the superannuation Acts we have to go through the whole gamut of legislative procedure, when wage rates and other conditions of service can be altered by negotiation and by awards of the tribunal without the specific approval of Parliament in this way? It appears to me that the retirement provisions of the public service might well be the subject of independent consideration from time to time upon which the House could receive advice from an independent examination of the relationship between retirement provisions and the earlier expectation as part of a man's conditions of service.
I know that this does not arise directly on the Bill though we see from time to time that Bills have to be introduced to deal first with one aspect and then another of this troublesome and complex problem. If this House is overburdened, as many people think it is, with a great deal of detail and matters which might suitably be transferred to other bodies, at least for examination and report, surely this is one of the questions which could be remitted. Why cannot this part of the conditions of service in the public service be transferred to those responsible for dealing with the other conditions of service?
It may have been that, originally, this House desired to keep firm control over the authority to pay pensions in the public service, because of patronage and other abuses which perhaps existed at the time of the first superannuation Acts at the beginning of the last century; but in modern conditions there is no need for that control to be exercised in its present form. For a great deal of public expenditure the authority of this House over the Estimates is enough. Why do we have to have all this difficulty in bringing about, usually belatedly, changes which anybody would have seen long before were needed and could be made with little cost and little difficulty. These Bills have to push their way in a crowded legislative programme and very often on that account they get put aside.
I certainly support the Bill. I am sure that what it does will be most welcome among those public servants, both civi-


lian and ex-officer, who felt for so long that they were suffering from a grievance. I cannot for a moment pretend that we have heard the last of pensions increases in the public service, and that probably goes for many vocational pensions schemes outside.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: By leave of the House, I will reply to one or two points raised in this short debate. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) himself made clear, the Bill deals only with the development of what one may call the Section 2 cases under the 1944 Act. It does not purport to deal with the hardship cases dealt with under Section 1. So far as the present Government are concerned, those cases were dealt with, of course, in the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952, which related solely to cases of that kind. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), I am sure, will not expect me to anticipate all the details of the Prerogative Instruments that my right hon. Friends will shortly be producing. I am sure they will pay due attention to what my hon. and learned Friend has said on the subject.

Mr. Marlowe: What is the procedure in connection with those Instruments? Are they laid before the House, and are they debatable?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Speaking from memory—I do not wish to be held to this—they are laid, but are not subject to Parliamentary procedure; but it is certainly not for me to lay down what the procedure is, and I only say that that is my recollection. I think that my hon. and learned Friend, with his adroitness in matters of Parliamentary procedure, will, no doubt, secure in one way or another that he will be able to say something about them.
The only general point I would make on what he said is that he was perfectly right in saying as a matter of mathematics that a 10 per cent, increase on 90.5 is not the same as a 9.5 per cent, increase on 100. The point, of course, here is, if one may use the term "restoration," that this is not intended to be a precise restoration of the pre-existing position. In particular, as I went out of my way to say, it is not intended to be a restoration of

the 1919 or 1922 systems under which these pensions fluctuated with the cost-of-living index.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will not, I am sure, expect me to follow him in the considerable excursion he made into the extremely important and general question of public service pensions. He speaks on that subject with probably more experience than any other Member of the House, and I listened to him with interest, but, as he knows, this Bill is to deal with the situation arising in the case of these pensions which fluctuated with the cost of living.
This is not a great and ambitious Measure, such as the one the hon. Gentleman was desirous of discussing. It is a specific and limited Measure. It has had, I am glad to say, so far as it goes a not unfriendly welcome, and I hope that the House will now be prepared to give it a Second Reading.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I apologise for not having intervened earlier, but I was absent from my place on another public duty.
I wish to bring forward a small point brought to my attention in a letter. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would be good enough to take it into consideration. Following the 1947 Act, there are excluded from the benefit of the Bill pensioners who retired on unaveraged salaries on or after 1st April, 1947, or on averaged salaries where the averaging period began on or after 1st April, 1946, the reason being that higher rates of pay from that time produced improved rates of pension for those men.
However, those higher rates of pay were slow in their effect on pensions, and were not very much at the best. It appears that some of those men who will not get the 10 per cent, will be left in a worse position than if they had retired at the earlier date. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would take that into account. Possibly the point has already been raised. If necessary, it could be considered in Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: By leave of the House, I would say that I am aware that there is the small and rather complicated point to which my right hon. Friend has referred. I will certainly not only con-


sider again the issue which there arises but, in particular, what he has said about it. As my right hon. Friend recognises, it is rather more of a Committee point, but it can certainly be looked at before the Committee stage, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having given me advance notice of the matter.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is the point which some of us endeavoured to ventilate earlier when, unfortunately, owing to another engagement, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) could not be here. I referred to it as a tapering arrangement. [Interruption ] No? But I thought the greater included the less and cases such as the one of which the right hon. Gentleman has just given an example would be covered by what one may call the tapering arrangement. This would allow those whose pensions did not come under the average to qualify, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, and would permit pensions to be paid at the higher rate up to 31st March, 1949. If that is not correct, perhaps we can say something about it when we discuss the Money Resolution, though it is rather tightly drawn.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Committee Tomorrow.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend section two of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such increase in the expenditure which under any Act is to be defrayed out of moneys so provided as is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session abolishing the limit of pension up to which increases may be made under the said section two and substituting ten per cent, of the scale of increase authorised by that section, toeing provisions operating from such date as may be specified therein.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to take up much time because I know there is a good deal of other business to be transacted and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were up all night, but I wonder whether the Financial Secretary will throw some light on the point raised just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton). I think it would be useful if he could give us some guidance so that we may know what we ought to do when the Bill is in Committee, that is, if something has then to be done. What this Bill does, or what we thought it did— and I understand now that it still does— is to continue an exclusion which was first put into operation by Section 3 of the 1947 Act, which affected pensioners who retired on unaveraged salaries received on or after 1st April, 1947, or on averaged salaries when the averaging period began on or after 1st April, 1946.
I understood from the Financial Secretary when I interrupted him earlier that, in spite of that provision in the 1947 Act, a tapering arrangement would be introduced which would enable pensioners right up to 31st March, 1949, to qualify and that therefore no anomaly so far as that period was concerned would arise. Now I understand from his reply to the right hon. Gentleman that when he replied to me he was not referring to this difficulty at all but to something else of which I am not fully seized. I do not press him on the matter because I know it is a complicated one, but I should be obliged if, nevertheless, he could give us some indication of what it was he was thinking about when he replied to me. and to what extent, if any, my point is different from the point raised by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West. I am sure the Committee would be obliged to the Financial Secretary if he would.
Furthermore, is the Financial Secretary quite sure that the Money Resolution is not too tightly drawn to enable us to improve the Bill in Committee?

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that I can respond to the request of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn,


West (Mr. Assheton) were discussing, I think, two quite separate and distinct matters. The interest of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley was in what is colloquially called the "taper." That is the arrangement under which a certain diminishing increase in the benefits conferred by this Bill goes to people who retire at such a date that their pensions are higher than those who retire at an earlier date.
If we do not add to those pension groups some such provision to deal with overlapping, we get the anomalous position in which some one is getting appreciably more pension because he retired in one year rather than another. The purpose of the taper is to eliminate these anomalies to which hon. Members have referred.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West was concerned with a very limited number of cases which gave rise to a certain amount of difficulty. There are, I understand, a few basic pensioners with between £400 and £410 who will not, as the Bill stands, benefit under it. They are the pensions of a certain small category whose family arrangements happen to bring them to that particular figure and who already benefit by rather more than 10 per cent, under the Acts of 1944 and 1947. That is a slight complication which my right hon. Friend's eagle eye did apparently spot. It is essentially a Committee point and it will certainly be looked into.
On the Money Resolution, I think that I can only say that it is designed to fit in with the main purpose of the Bill, which is this 10 per cent, increase for pensioners in this category, and I do not think that we should find any difficulty in accepting it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

POST OFFICE (SITE AND RAILWAY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.13 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is to enable the Post Office to put up a new building to replace the present Western District Office. The present Western District Office is spread over four buildings which are very inadequate. One of them is requisitioned and another consists of temporary buildings.
Since the war, the Western District Office has had to cope with vastly increased work. It was overcrowded many years ago, and today the conditions in that office are regarded as pretty desperate. For example, there is no proper parking place for the vans which drive into it. Very often mail vans loaded with bags of mail have to drive round and round, waiting for room to go in, and that causes enormous inconvenience and much discomfort.
When, in fact, we estimate the cost in cash alone of these inadequate buildings, we find that it amounts to something like £80,000 a year. I think that any one who has had anything to do with the Post Office would agree that it is about time that we had a new Western District Office. So we have decided to put one up. The site which has been chosen is between Rathbone Place and Newman Street, a very short distance north-west of where Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street meet.
We have chosen this site for two reasons. The first is that it has been very largely cleared already by bombs, and the other reason is that it is very close to the Post Office railway which, as the House knows, runs between White-chapel and Paddington. It is proposed to undertake the building in two stages. The first, which will be started as soon as the Bill is passed, affects only an area of 1½ acres and this will entail the demolition of only five buildings.
The second stage, which we do not propose to start for 10 years, will be the remainder of the building in Newman Street, and this will mean demolishing a


row of offices and shops. We do not propose to start any of the demolition work on the second part of the site for A period of 10 years, but if any of the people who have interests in this part want us to acquire their interests much earlier, we should be prepared to consider that and allow them to stay on as temporary tenants.
The building which we propose to put up will be five storeys high, and the ground floor will be entirely devoted to loading and parking space, which means that the vans will not have to hang about the streets and will drive in at one side of the building and out at the other.
The House may wonder why his matter comes before it at all in this form. The reason why it has been necessary to present this hybrid Bill is because the Post Office railway has to be diverted for a distance of about 600 yards, and we have to tunnel under other people's property. Most people have heard of the Post Office railway, but I think that very few understand exactly what it does. It carries about 12 million mailbags a year, and but for it we should need another 500 red vans on the streets of London. Now all the traffic from this office is to be concentrated under one roof instead of being spread over the four temporary buildings, and it will be more convenient in its new location than it was in the old.
Perhaps I should add that the estimated cost of the first part of this scheme will be of the order of £4 million. As I have said, this is a hybrid Bill and the usual procedure applies. Anyone who wishes to object because his interests are affected will have an opportunity to petition and have his case heard by the Select Committee. I think that I have dealt with most of the main points covered by the Bill, but if the House have any other matters, perhaps I may be allowed to speak again later.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: It must be many months since we found ourselves in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. Up till today we thought that he was determined to make every Post Office issue a subject of political warfare, and. indeed, some of the decisions that have been taken by his noble Friend lately have been somewhat amazing and to us fantastic. However, so far as this Bill is concerned, we welcome it.
Its object, as the hon. Gentleman said, is to build a new West Central Office and to couple the Post Office underground railway with the new buildings. It will obviously make the Post Office more efficient and should speed up the transit of mail, particularly from east to west. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if there have been any petitions raised against the Bill, particularly in view of the fact that there are three Metropolitan boroughs involved—St. Pancras, Holborn and Marylebone.
The West Central Office was never adequate, even before the war, for the requirements of the Post Office, and it is obviously hopelessly inadequate now, particularly as so much of the pre-war City business is now conducted in the West Central district. As a result of the future planning of the City of London, it is obvious that much of this business will remain at the West Central Office. In addition, this office has to cope with very heavy mail order services from the West End stores in the area which it serves.
We can all say that the railway is one of the prides of the Post Office. There can be hardly a Postmaster-General or an Assistant Postmaster-General since the opening of the railway in 1927 who has not gone underground, inspected the signal cabins, shunted the trains, and done a bit of signalling and enjoyed the nostalgia of his boyhood. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has done this too.
The Assistant Postmaster-General mentioned the effect of the railway on road traffic. I was surprised to hear that there are now 12 million mailbags per annum passing on the underground railway. By this diversion the Post Office railway makes its contribution to solving the problem of the density of London's traffic.
I wonder whether, when discussing the need for a Bill to deal with the railway, the hon. Gentleman has considered an extension northwards to couple up with the main line termini of Euston, St. Pancras and King's Cross. This seems to me an urgent necessity, and I could never understand why previous Governments, particularly before the war, did not carry out this development, particularly when economic conditions were such that labour and capital were readily available.
I do not want to add a jarring note when dealing with an agreed Bill, but I


should like to ask the hon. Gentleman this question. Can he assure us that the Post Office railway will be used particularly when high value packets and special money is in transit by the Post Office? Some of us, even now, cannot understand why the railway was not used for the recent transfer of the £250,000 between Paddington and the King Edward Building. Had the railway been used, the robbery might have been averted. I should like to know whether it is proposed to use the railway for the transit of high value packets, because this is an important matter, particularly when one considers the area that the railway serves.
I wonder whether the Assistant Postmaster-General can explain the meaning of Clause 2 (3, b), which states:
in subsection (3) of the said section seven (which imposes a time limit on certain claims in respect of injurious interference with electric wires, lines or apparatus) the reference to the opening of the railway shall, in relation to the new railway, be construed as a reference to the opening of the new railway.
After nine years in the House, one gets a little experience in interpreting the meaning of what for the benefit of the Attorney-General, for instance, I would describe as legal jargon. Even after reference to earlier legislation, I do not know what subsection (3, b) means, and I am sure that the House would like an explanation.
Clause 9 deals with claims for compensation as a result of improvement in site value. May we take it that the Government now are prepared to tackle the scandal of extra value that derives from improvements effected on property? In other words, are the Government prepared to tackle the problem of the rating and valuation of site values? Clause 9 is quite categorical and is a revolution in Government policy. One might also say that it ought to have been mentioned in the Gracious Speech, because it goes on to say:
In determining the amount of any compensation payable under or by virtue of this Act, the Lands Tribunal shall not take into account any interest in land, or any enhancement of the value of any interest in land by reason of any building erected, work done or improvement.
My hon. and right hon. Friends and I welcome that. We only hope that this will not be the first and only Bill which seeks to tackle this problem, which for

a long time has been nothing short of a public scandal.
There is one point of interest which I have never noticed in any other Parliamentary Bill. Part II of the Second Schedule contains a full description of the methods to be used in the construction of the railway. Although it makes interesting reading, one wonders why it was necessary to put this in the Schedule, although I agree that the wording is informative. I shall not detain the House longer, for the reasons which other hon. Members gave earlier. We on this side regard the Bill as workmanlike and we think that it will make the handling of the Royal Mail speedier and more efficient, particularly in the centre of London.

5.27 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) has made it clear that we on this side welcome the Bill and will give it our support. We always support the good work that the Post Office is doing. The Post Office has reason to be proud, and the Assistant Postmaster-General should be proud of his responsibility for the clearness and beautiful design that the Post Office uses on such things as its typography, its stamps, and the rest. It has shown to the nation examples of good taste that are unrivalled in any other Government Department or, come to that, in industry.
The Post Office has the advantage in these things of using competent designers and artists. For example, the Post Office is fortunate in having at its disposal the services of so great a designer and typographer as Sir Francis Meynell, who, the Assistant Postmaster-General will agree, has given freely of his considerable talents and time and has made a significant contribution to the products of the Post Office.
Incidentally, I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been able to do something to the London telephone directory, the cover of which is a typographical disgrace. It is a shame that a great city like London should produce so wretched a cover as on the telephone directory, simply in the interests of money paid for advertising. But then, the hon. Gentleman has a penchant for looking after the interests of advertisers.
As a Londoner, I welcome new buildings going up in our city, but I want them to be beautiful. It was the Minister of Works who, I believe, so wisely said that he did not want to see a neo-Georgian London. While the Post Office or Ministry of Works architects have done very good work in the past and have built reasonably decent post offices, which are at least distinct from horrible buildings like Woolworth's and other chain store buildings which have been erected in county towns, and are certainly a great improvement on anything else which has been erected for 20 or 30 years, they are now beginning to slip into the error of simply repeating the successes of 20 or 30 years ago.
Post offices are certainly easily recognisable, but so are public conveniences, and nobody attributes to them any great artistic or architectural merit. The new building to which the Assistant Postmaster-General has referred provides a great opportunity for a proper design. I do not know whether it is the intention of the hon. Gentleman to put these new buildings out to competition. I presume it is, because in my researches on this Bill I came across a speech which he made in March, 1947, when the House was discussing the new Colonial Office. The hon. Gentleman said:
What I should have liked would have been to see this site kept free altogether as an open space. However, if that cannot be arranged, I certainly agree with other hon. Members on both sides of the House in saying, For heaven's sake let us see that we get a really good architect. Let us see that this is put out to competition and not handed over to some architect in the Ministry of Works. I think the Government ought to agree this afternoon that the design for this building should be put out for competition and that we should have an opportunity to see the plans and form some idea of what the finished building will look like.
Later in the debate to which I have referred, the hon. Member interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key), who was then the Minister of Works, to say:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance now that it will be done"—
that is, the building will be designed—
by competition?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1612–8.]
I am not saying that competition for architectural designs for buildings of this kind is absolutely necessary to get away from uniformity and produce something

which is right for our age and time; the hon. Gentleman is saying that. But I do want to ask him to take the necessary steps to see that we do not put up in London just another Post Office building and leave it at that.
This is a magnificent site. It is not in the West End, but it is off a thoroughfare which is used by millions of Londoners every week. These buildings should be something to which we can take people and say, "Here is an example of the truly great architectural and artistic values and abilities which exist in this country." I would recommend to the Assistant Postmaster-General that that can be achieved by beginning now. We have plenty of time, because the second part of this programme does not begin for 10 years. I suggest that we should marry the architects and the artists right from the beginning.
I hope that the Government will adopt the attitude which the Coalition Government adopted during the war towards war-time artists. Then, for the first time for years, public resources were used on art, and artists were encouraged in particular jobs. I do not know how the artist lives today. As I propose to show later, the amount of public money spent on living artists is absurdly small. Public service is neglecting our young designers, established artists and muralists to a quite shameful degree.
It will be said that the reason is that there is no money available. I shall indicate to the Assistant Postmaster-General where that money can be obtained. He should get the assistance of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and take away some of the money which is given to the Minister of Education, who is pouring out money on art schools and upon teachers who are engaged in turning out indifferent artists, and giving them an education which they cannot use. We are spending large sums of money to enable teachers to teach rather indifferent art students, rather indifferently, how to become indifferent artists.
Instead of that, we should be spending some of the money on living artists. The Post Office provides a great opportunity for that. Just because the Assistant Postmaster-General is concerned with 2½d. stamps, there is no reason why he should be concerned with 2½d. architecture or 2½d. art. This Bill provides an opportunity for him to set a good ex-


ample in London. The money which is being spent by the Minister of Education is largely being wasted. The latest annual figures I can find show that 1,027 art students sat for the teaching diploma which enables them to teach. Of these, 789 were successful, including 571 painters. Seven hundred and eighty-nine successful students are turned out by art schools each year to become art teachers, and for whom only 14 or 15 jobs are available, while many thousands of ordinary artists, who can never hope to aspire to be anything more than commercial artists, are turned out to work in advertising agencies or on local newspapers and other jobs upon which it is not necessary for us to spend so much money.
The problem of the artists who are in a higher class altogether is something which should worry the Assistant Post master-General, because he needs to foster art if his Department is to go on turning out good stuff as the years go by. How are these artists to be kept alive? The Arts Council is not doing that. It is spending an insignificant sum upon living artists. So far as I can see, the 30,000 or 40,000 living artists can expect to get about £1 per head from the State as a direct subvention for their work. It would be much better for them to help produce opera and ballet—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): The hon. Member must not discuss ballet. That is going too far away from the Bill.

Sir L. Plummer: I accept that rebuke, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was only seeking to indicate how the Assistant Postmaster-General could establish a reservoir of art. I will come directly to the Bill. There are many muralists and designers who can be used. This new Bill gives an opportunity for the architects and artists, the designers and the technicians to get together on the drawing board and to see that, both inside and outside the building, work can be provided for our great monumental sculptors, muralists and decorative artists. If that is done it will ensure that we get a marriage of an efficient building and an aesthetically beautiful building for London, and something of which we can all be proud.
In the early days of the Roosevelt Administration a great deal of work was

done by the Work Provision Administration, using artists for this very purpose, in the designing of the interiors and exteriors of post offices, the painting of murals and the provision of sculptures. It is true that many have been painted over because the Senator McCarthy's do not like them, but in this country we are in no immediate danger of having that kind of political censorship of art.
For those reasons, I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to consult his colleagues and, particularly, the Minister of Works. The Minister of Works has shown exceptionally good taste for any Minister in the present Government. His handling of the Coronation, where vulgarity might have been predominant, was in impeccable good taste. From the point of view of the artist he is an adornment to the present Government. If the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Minister of Works would get together, between them they could see that these projected buildings would be worthy both of our time and of our people.

The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): May I thank the hon. Member for those kind remarks about me. He might like to know that the Ministry of Works acts on behalf of the Post Office in putting up such buildings. We have an arrangement with the Treasury whereby a specific percentage of the total cost of the building can be used for purposes such as those which the hon. Member has in mind—sculptures, interior treatment and treatment outside the building. In that way I think we shall be able to associate with the architects, sculptors and designers whom he thinks will embellish the building. We are putting out to competition the furnishings of some of the new buildings. One very successful effort has been received and I am pressing on with another. In that way we shall give the various designers of modern furniture a chance to show what they can do.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: It is said about this honourable House that we live and learn every minute of the day and every day of the week that we spend here. It seems remarkable that we have been able to have such a fine storming attack from my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) on such a


narrow front, and I congratulate him most heartily on placing an emphasis on something which the House has completely ignored in Post Office buildings in the past. His contribution to the debate, and especially the assurances given by the Minister of Works, will go far to make the contemplated building very much better and brighter than some of the buildings of which I had personal experience for most of my 30 or 40 years' service in the Post Office.
If I have had a major quarrel with the Post Office, apart from that on salaries and wages, it has been on two matters. First, the Post Office has been perfectly happy to accommodate the staff and transact business in any sort of old place, in any old street, it could get hold of, as long as it was secured cheaply. Cheapness seems to have been the criterion. I am glad that my hon. Friend and the Minister have made the comments they have done, particularly in view of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the new Colonial Office, where he showed some sense of responsibility. I hope they will ensure that this long overdue building will be worthy of the Post Office.
Nothing used to worry me more than to see some of the banks, insurance offices and other business offices erecting fine, commodious buildings while the Post Office, because of an embargo on price, was putting up shoddy stuff, dull and unimaginative and not worthy of one of the greatest services of the country. I certainly hope that my hon. Friend's remarks will penetrate deeply into the soul of the Assistant Postmaster-General and into that of the Department, too.
I should not like to say that there were not some very good designers and architects in the Post Office. The Post Office has some excellent material but, as I have said, it is a question of money. When the authorities put up a new post office they do their best to do so as cheaply as possible, thus satisfying a large number of hon. Members opposite; the cheaper they get it, the better they think it is. I want to emphasise my hon. Friend's comments and to ask that in this case we should get a very good building.

Mr. John Taylor: I think it might bring my hon. Friend some comfort to learn that the new post offices in the new towns are excellent. Obvi-

ously the work is by first-class interior designers. These buildings are a great encouragement and joy to those who see them and use them.

Mr. Williams: Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to hear that, because for years I have been advocating such a policy, urging that the Post Office should become responsible for beautiful as well as for useful buildings. I am glad that in the new towns the Post Office is taking steps to see that the buildings. fit into the aesthetic and architectural schemes of the new communities.
I am glad that the Minister and his noble Friend have at last decided to tackle the problem in the West Central parts of London. For the past 20 years, to my knowledge, this has been a problem affecting not only the post office but also the transport of the City of London and the surrounding areas. This step will solve not only a Post Office problem about the transportation of mails and the disposal of letters and parcels. It will add substantially to the efforts to solve the traffic problem in the inner circle of London.
I know from long experience the congestion and difficulties which have been experienced administratively and from a trade union point of view in connection with this office. I certainly hope that the Minister and his noble Friend will not stop their plans at this office. There is substance in the remarks of one of my hon. Friends that there should be an extension of this railway not only to this office but to one or two others, because the problem of carrying mails across the huge City of London will have to be tackled with great imagination, courage and urgency. There are a number of other offices in London of which I have personal knowledge where the congestion and lack of space is a serious handicap to efficiency.
My hon. Friends, and often hon. Members opposite, criticise the Post Office for lack of efficiency. I suggest that the administration and the staff of the Post Office have a great deal for which to criticise this House and the Department for making it so difficult, by reason of the accommodation provided, for the staff to give of their best and to render the most efficient service. I therefore hope that this new building will be not only beautiful but also will be an easy office


in which to work. When he was Postmaster-General, Sir Kingsley Wood did some very good work in connection with the public counter offices, and I sincerely hope that the present Postmaster-General will use the same imagination in dealing with sorting offices.
In the Post Office in the last decade we have been rather inclined to think that if our outside offices looked fairly decent it did not matter about the hovels in which many of our people were working behind the scenes. The Assistant Postmaster-General says that the scheme proposed in this Bill will be in two parts, the first to cost £4 million. He did not say how much the second part would cost, but he said that it might be 10 years before that second stage was completed.
The hon. Gentleman did not say what would constitute the first stage. Will it be made up of offices on the surface with connections to the London Post Office railway below ground? Having regard to the postal and transport problems of London, is it wise to leave the completion of this second stage for 10 years? It seems to me an over-long period having regard to the urgency of these problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), who was Assistant Postmaster-General in the previous Administration, told us of the interest he felt, which no doubt has been felt by other Assistant Postmaster-Generals and Postmaster-Generals, in going below ground to play with the signals of the Post Office railway. But some of our people who work below ground every day do not share the happiness which they see on the faces of those who come to play with the signals. In the new constructions I hope that we shall have some regard for welfare accommodation for the staff who have to work in the bowels of the earth on this railway.
The accommodation in one or two offices is very poor indeed. To overcome some of their difficulties people have had to come up from below to the parent office for ablutions, etc. Now that we are constructing a new tube and new stations there is an excellent opportunity not only to consider the working of the railway but the amenities for the staff. Incidentally, I do not see why there should not be two tracks.

Mr. Hobson: There are to be two tracks in one tunnel.

Mr. Williams: That is all right provided that that arrangement works.
But I should like to stress the need for welfare accommodation for the staff. I strongly support this Bill. I should have supported it even more strongly had it been brought forward when I first came to this House. I hope that we shall not accept the view that of necessity we must spread this new work over a period of 10 years. In view of the ever-increasing traffic in London, I hope that the work will be carried out in a much shorter period of time.

5.54 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The debate has become for me one of the most important that I have ever participated in since I came to this House. It is true that we had an attempt in March, 1947, at some of the things that are now proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), in quoting from debates at that time, did not mention what my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key), who was then Minister of Works, said in answer to representations made both by the present Assistant Postmaster-General and myself.
The present Assistant Postmaster-General then asked that plans should be open to competition. He did not receive a categorical answer that that might be done. Indeed, the Minister of Works at the time said that he would look into the matter but that he could not make any promise. That I could well understand It is easy for us who are not architects to say that if plans are put out for competition we are bound to have the best results But I am not sure that we can achieve the best results by using a technique of that kind, particularly in view of the fact that there is so much experience in the architectural department of the Ministry of Works
However that may be, the Assistant Postmaster-General must accept the view that he is a patron of the arts in this matter. A patron of the arts is someone who spends money wisely so that new forms of art are created. I put a Question a few months ago about the B.B.C., in which I said that the B.B.C. devours


the arts but cannot be a patron of them because its money does not allow payment for the creation of new forms. It has to take the existing forms of art and present them to us. But here the Assistant Postmaster-General has an incredible opportunity.
The Minister of Works today very kindly gave us his views on what could be done. He is acting as an agent. He tells us that he has money, provided by the Treasury, for use, at his discretion, to embellish buildings with sculptures outside and murals inside, or both. I asked for that in the course of the debate in which the present Assistant Postmaster-General spoke in 1947.
I asked that approximately 2 per cent, of the total cost of the new Colonial Office should be allocated for this purpose. We have progressed very rapidly since 1947, as I hope to illustrate if you, Mr. Speaker, do not rule me out of order. The then Minister of Works said:
I share with the House the great ambitions in regard to the buildings which are to be erected upon this site together with the other buildings which it will be necessary for us to erect in central London, and which we wish to be of the highest and finest character it is possible for us to secure. All I am asking for now is the power to acquire this site. I am not asking today for approval for any specific building to be erected there, but I shall give very careful consideration lo the suggestions that have been made with regard to a competition for the architectural work on this site, and that consultations should take place not only with architects but with other artists in the hope that they will provide buildings worthy of the place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1618.]
In 1947 it was possible for foreigners to laugh at our forms of art. I think that they were wrong, but the criticisms passed by the French, Italians and Swiss about our forms of art, whether sculpture or painting either associated with buildings or separately in their own right, were somewhat derisive. Now, in a few years, a situation has arisen in which it is possible for critics to say, as in this quotation from Switzerland:
Since the decline of England's world power a new world power seems to be proclaiming itself in England, and it is that of painting and sculpture.
The Assistant Postmaster-General and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works have at their disposal the talents of two of the finest sculptors in the world, who are today living and work-

ing in this country. That is an extraordinary thing which has not happened before in our history. I refer, of course, to Henry Moore and Epstein, and there are many others of great merit and weight. That is not merely my own view but is what people throughout the world think of these sculptors.
We have our great painters, as can be seen by the fact that a women's organisation in Toronto spent £2,000 for the Toronto Gallery on 16 works of art by British painters in one year—last year. The total sum of money which the Minister of Works has been able to spend out of the Vote this current year has been only £2,400, but we know that he actually spends very much more in fostering the arts, as he has other sources of income. Although I cannot ask him to reveal those amounts now, I shall put some Questions to him in the future to find how much he is able to spend.
It is quite certain that the French show the flag all over the world through their forms of art and they get credit wherever they go. I believe that we have here in Britain a school of mature artists and a great school of rising artists who are capable of assisting in the embellishment of a building of this kind to make it notable beyond anything in Europe, if the Assistant Postmaster-General will give them their head. We could do everything the French do if we did not buy everything on a shoe string.
I sincerely hope that the Minister of Works, to whom this work will be delegated, will insist—whether he takes the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford and tries, in the way suggested, to seize money from the Minister of Education or not—on having enough money to see that this building shall set an example, not only to our people, but to the whole of Europe and the world.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I wish to reply briefly to some of the points that have been raised. I am very grateful to the House for the way in which it has received this Bill and for the obvious keenness of hon. Members that when we spend this sum of money we should make a good job of the building. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) asked if any Petitions had been received. The answer


is no, because strictly—from a legal point of view—they cannot be received until the Bill has been committed.
The hon. Member also asked whether we were hoping to extend the Post Office railway to other London termini. The answer is, yes, but an underground railway costs far more to build today than it did when the original Post Office railway was built. Therefore, it is a question of whether we have the money to do that. He also asked if the railway was used for high value packets. The difficulty in using the railway for that purpose is that it would mean that the packets would have to pass out of the custody of a particular individual, whereas when they go by road from the terminus to the sorting office, they are in the custody of one man or the same men for the whole time.
The hon. Member asked the meaning of Clause 2 (3, b), and he may well have asked that question. What it amounts to is that under Section 7 of the 1913 Act, electricity suppliers and others were given two years from the opening of the railway in which to make claims for interference to their apparatus. Clause 2 (3, b) makes the period two years from the opening of the new railway. He also asked how the valuation was to be computed. It is to be computed on existing use value with such adaptations as may be appropriate under the Bill which is now before the House.
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) referred in a very interesting way to embellishing Post Office buildings. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works who dealt with some of the points made by the hon. Member. I think we can leave it to my right hon. Friend, whose impeccably good taste has been referred to in the debate, to do everything in his power to see that nothing horrible is put up. He has had great experience, and hon. Members in all quarters of the House are proud of what has been done by him since he became Minister of Works. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen any of the post offices recently built, but, if not, I should be glad to arrange for them to see them. I think hon. Members would agree that, not only those post offices, but the new telephone exchanges are a credit to this country and we have

nothing there to be ashamed of. I think we can leave that matter to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Deptford made a very pathetic plea to me to keep young artists alive. I must remind him that with my many responsibilities I am afraid I cannot ensure that. Although I am sure they are very worthy people, I cannot accept responsibility for keeping young artists alive.

Dr. Stross: In case the Assistant Postmaster-General gets a bad reputation as a result of his joking remark, may I point out that what was meant was that if, when great public buildings are constructed, he ensures that there is space for mural decorations and sculpture, he will keep those young artists alive.

Mr. Gammans: I did not want my remarks on this matter to be taken seriously, but I do not think that I can be asked to keep young artists from starving.

Sir L. Plummer: The hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that the future of the architectural excellence of the buildings will be safe in the hands of the Minister of Works because the right hon. Gentleman exercises a negative control and will see that nothing horrible is put up, but that is not what I was asking. I was asking that something beautiful should be put up. I was asking that it should be seen that something good was put up.

Mr. Gammans: That is what I meant; I think that my right hon. Friend can be trusted not only to prevent horrors being put up, but to see that something worthy of the country is erected.
The hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) has had to leave us. I think that in his speech he was a little rough on us when he said that we were in favour, when putting up buildings, of "the cheaper the better." That scarcely fits in with what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Deptford. who, on the whole, thought that our level of building had been fairly good.
The hon. Member for Droylsden also asked why we were doing this work in two stages and whether the first stage left out anything which ought to be included. The second stage is much more concerned with the construction of administrative


buildings than separate Post Office accommodation. I think that the hon. Member will be satisfied with that answer. We are also very much aware of the fact that we need welfare accommodation, not only for the underground railway staff but also in the building itself. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) raised the whole question of sculpture, but I think that my right hon. Friend has satisfied him on that point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Six Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection:

Any Petitions against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fifth day after the day on which this Order is made to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petitions are deposited, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House:

Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to be heard against the Bill provided that their Petitions are prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House, and Counsel to be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions:

Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Gammans.]

CHARITABLE TRUSTS (VALIDATION) BELL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

6.9 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill has already been considered and approved in another place. It is of a somewhat technical nature. I am, therefore, most anxious not to delay the House unnecessarily in referring to its provisions. But I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) would probably agree that as it does involve, for limited purposes, a substantial alteration in the law and a certain amount of retrospective legislation, it would be desirable that the provisions and the necessity for them should be briefly explained. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been kind enough to let me know that there are one or two matters upon which he would like to say a word or two. Therefore, I hope that the House will not mind if I occupy a few minutes in explaining the Bill.
The Bill arises out of the recommendations of a committee which has become known—not disrespectfully I hope; one might almost say "affectionately" in some respects—as the Nathan Committee, which was set up by the Prime Minister to report on the law and practice relating to charitable trusts. Its report was published on 16th December, 1952, and the Prime Minister made a statement and circulated certain information at the same time.
I can perhaps best summarise the matter by saying that the report dealt with a very broad field indeed. It made a number of important, interesting and in some respects revolutionary recommendations for changing the law in relation to charities. Some of them are undoubtedly controversial and are interesting and are the subject of a great deal of discussion and thought. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that at the present time I am not in a position to make any statement about what the policy is likely to be in relation to them.
The Nathan Committee reported that urgent and somewhat drastic action was required in respect of one topic. The subject, dealt with in chapter 12 of the report, was that of what are called "imperfect trust instruments." I do not want to involve the House in a complicated consideration of rather abstruse legal matters, and I feel that I can explain the matter simply if I say that a charitable trust, if it is a good charitable trust, enjoys certain privileges which other trusts cannot have.
For example, charitable trusts are exempt from the rule against perpetuities. That is a very important and desirable privilege for them to have. However, it was found that certain cases arose where the trusts were not proper charitable trusts—to use an inaccurate phrase—and, therefore, when it was found that a trust offended against the perpetuities rule, the trust was bad. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the matter in any more detail than that. It is sufficient to say that, in broad outline, the Bill gives effect to the proposals which were made by the Nathan Committee for remedying the situation.
With regard to the seriousness of the situation, there were two well known cases, called the Oxford Group case and the Ellis case, which disclosed that there was a serious amount of trouble. Although I am not very familiar with the details, I understand that the trouble was traced back to some precedent which had been carefully drafted many years ago, had found its way into the textbooks and had been used on a very large scale. Unfortunately, that was rather a trap.
The serious aspect of the matter was that a number of ecclesiastical trusts had used that form. The result was that there was believed to be—in fact, there was known with certainty to be—a large class, the only uncertain thing about which was the number of cases involved, in the case of which unless something was done, we should have trusts which were invalid. Worse than that, the very highly respectable people who had been the trustees of them might be said to have been acting improperly for years. There was also the very important consideration that, whereas the law provides for the exemption of true charities from

tax, one would find that in those cases the exemption would no longer apply.
The Nathan Committee recommended that the date to be taken as the relevant date for the purpose of remedial legislation should be 31st December, 1950. They founded this recommendation on the assumption that it was the decision in the two cases which I mentioned that first drew public attention to the trouble. As the cases were decided some time in 1949, the Committee thought that a period of grace of 18 months would be enough to allow people to appreciate their position, and they accordingly recommended the end of December, 1950.
However, the Government have come to the conclusion that the line should be drawn on the date when they announced their decision to legislate. That is the date when the report of the Nathan Committee was published and the Prime Minister made his statement in the House. That was the first time at which people could really be said to have been specifically put on their guard about it.
I come to the next point of difference between the Bill and the suggestions of the Nathan Committee. The Nathan Committee proposed to make a distinction between what they called "older" and "younger" trusts. In the case of older trusts, they recommended that if the objects included any charitable objects at all, the trusts should be validated and the endowments thereafter applied exclusively to those objects which were good charitable objects. In that case, they were not going to preserve the right to object of anyone who was an interested legatee or otherwise had a claim.
Secondly, they recommended that if a trust had no charitable objects at all but those responsible had thought that there were charitable objects, provision should be made for validating the trust. In this case the Government have decided that that goes much too far and that it is not possible to go to that length in extending this very unusual legal umbrella.
With regard to the younger trusts, the Nathan Committee recommended that nothing should be done unless, first of all, there was a primary object which


was a good charitable object, and, secondly, the expenditure of the fund up till then had been devoted, or mainly devoted, to charitable objects. There, again, that recommendation has not been entirely adopted by the Government in this Bill.
In the first instance, as I say, we have definitely abandoned the proposal to validate older trusts which never had any charitable object at all. Secondly, we have decided not to place any restriction on the validation of the so-called younger trusts. In the case of those which have been validated, the conditions will be slightly different, as I shall show in a moment. In that case, the Bill applies to the trust and validates it whenever it came into operation, provided that it had some charitable object.
In dealing with adverse claims, that is to say, when someone comes in and wishes to challenge the validity of the trust on the ground that he or she would be the person otherwise entitled to the money, the Bill in substance preserves the distinction between the older and the younger trusts by making an absolute bar against a claim which accrued more than six years before the relevant date. Other claims are allowed, but they must be made within one year of the passing of the Bill.
There is also another difference in this respect from the Nathan recommendations in the effect of the Bill on the various trusts to which it applies. In every case, we propose to validate the trust, and not only the trust itself, but everything done under it up to the relevant date as if the trust had always had good charitable objects, and after the relevant date the trust will be treated as if all the non-charitable objects were omitted.
That, as I have mentioned, was what was recommended by the Nathan Committee for the older trusts, and that is the principle which we adopt. As regards trusts which had already been treated as invalid before the relevant date, for example, where there had been legal proceedings before that date, and where a declaration had been made that the trusts were invalid, or where trust properties had been handed over to third parties by the trustees, the Bill will not apply. There is also a saving provision for any decision given before its commencement that the

trust was or was not to be treated as charitable for any statutory purpose.
Then there is a special rule with regard to taxation. Any tax which was paid on the basis that a trust was not charitable is not to be repaid, but where a trust is retrospectively made charitable then it is given retrospective protection as regards the tax. The principle there is really that the loss is to lie where it falls.
Perhaps I should just say a word with regard to the extent of the Bill when it becomes an Act. The Prime Minister's statement and the terms of reference of the committee were limited to England and Wales. The law in Scotland is different, and there is no question of including Scotland in any case. As regards Northern Ireland, the law there is the same, and, therefore, provision is made in the Bill for the Northern Ireland Parliament to have power to pass corresponding legislation if it thinks fit.
Finally, the Bill is to bind the Crown, and the appropriate consent will be signified in due course. With regard to that, and since one of the main objects of the Bill is to confirm the charitable intention of donors, I should perhaps say that the Crown in its capacity of donor naturally wishes to take advantage of the protection of the Bill, and therefore does not wish to press its normal claims to such things as bona vacantia or as a beneficiary under a resulting trust if the trusts are declared to be invalid.
Those are the main provisions, and perhaps I should just say a word or two about various points. If hon. Members have any points that they would like to raise, it would certainly be of assistance if they were indicated shortly. Of course, these points are probably almost entirely Committee points. In particular, I think I should mention the provision in Clause 4 (1) which reads:
This Act shall not apply for the purpose of any legal proceedings begun before the sixteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.
That provision is a little difficult and perhaps I should add this word of explanation. What is envisaged there is a case in which someone before 16th December, 1952, has raised in legal proceedings the question whether a particular trust is or is not a good charitable trust. If that has been done, then those proceedings are to be decided without any


reference to the Measure. If there were a case where there had been some legal proceedings which did not raise the question of this Measure, then in that case the application of the Bill when it becomes an Act would not be prevented.
It is very difficult to imagine what the proceedings would be in relation to a trust of this kind which could not, or did not, raise the question, and I think we can take it that as soon as the question becomes open then, of course, the court which has to consider that question is bound to ignore the provisions of the Measure. I think it is true to say that if one could imagine legal proceedings which did not involve the question of good or bad charitable objects, then one would find something which was not covered by Clause 4 (1).
I do not know whether it would be possible to find such a case, but, from the drafting point of view, I think it right to say that it would not do to say that this shall not apply if any legal proceedings had been taken, because they might possibly be proceedings which indirectly affect the subject matter of the trust in some way, and that, of course, is not what is contemplated. Therefore, I do not think that the wording can really be put in any other way.
A question was raised in another place, and I think that several hon. Members might be interested in it. The suggestion was made that those under a disability should be given special treatment, and that in relation to their making a claim the time limit should be varied. We decided that there should be no change in the Bill in that respect, and if any hon. Members have any points with regard to that I have no doubt that they will develop them. Of course, anything they say will be carefully listened to, but I think I ought to say that the decision which was adopted in another place was very carefully considered.
It would probably be better if I did not try to anticipate any other points. I will endeavour to deal with any that are raised, but, of course, they are really Committee matters, and I hope that the House will not think it necessary to go into them in any detail.
In conclusion, I think the whole House would wish to join with me in expressing the gratitude of all concerned, both

inside and outside this House, to the members of the Nathan Committee for the admirable work which they did in considering this difficult subject. We may not all agree with all their recommendations, but one thing on which I am sure we can all agree is that they have rendered a real public service in the production of that report.

6.30 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: At the outset, may I cordially associate myself with the Attorney-General's concluding remarks. One has only to look at the report and to glance at its contents to realise that the members of the Nathan Committee have achieved a really monumental work. The subject is abstruse and abstract, and they have obviously devoted unstinting pains and labour in reaching their conclusions as to matters which have for some time agitated both branches of the legal profession.
I do not suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would claim for his Measure that it will produce an ecstatic thrill of pleasure in the minds of millions of people. Nevertheless it is an extremely useful little Bill. As he says, it gives effect to the recommendations in Chapter 12 of the Nathan Committee Report, and, as Lord Nathan himself recognised when speaking on the Measure in another place, the drafting of the Bill carries out his purpose in a highly skilful manner, though not altogether in the same manner that he and the members of his Committee conceived.
I do not want to detain the House long, particularly after the full exposition to which we have just listened. I will just limit myself to asking one or two questions about the contents of the Bill which cause some doubt in the minds of those who are concerned with it. May I turn first to Clause 1 and put a question on the scope of the Measure. The Attorney-General did say something about it, but I am not quite sure that I followed part of what he said. Perhaps, if he makes some concluding remarks, he will be so good as to answer my question.
As the Ellis case shows, these charitable trusts can be invalid if, inadvertently, there are coupled with the words which set out the charitable purpose some words which could conceal or could embrace a non-charitable purpose. If one looks at the definition in Clause 1


(1), presumably that type of trust is included. The Ellis type of trust was one where there were clearly charitable purposes specified. Then words were added which were capable of embracing, besides charitable purposes, purposes which strictly as a matter of law, were non-charitable, and, as the Attorney-General said, clearly that type of trust would be within the scope of Clause 1.
I should like to know if the following would be included. Supposing some charitable purposes were specified and then some non-charitable purposes were specified as alternative purposes so that, under the terms of the Bill, one could use the whole fund upon one of the charitable purposes without using any of it on the non-charitable purposes. Would that be within the scope of the Clause? As I read the Clause it would, because it would be a provision which was so conceived that, "consistent with its terms, the property could be used exclusively for the charitable purposes." In other words it could be used for those purposes which were charitable, although the Clause contained some purposes which were not charitable at all. I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman nods his head, so those are within the scope of the Bill.
I turn to Clause 4 with which the Attorney-General concluded his remarks. A case has been brought to my notice which, I gather, is giving some concern —and I think it is the case the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind. It is the case in which trustees under a settlement had, before 16th December, 1952, issued an originating summons in relation to the terms of the trust with which they were concerned. They were concerned to know—and I think that the Attorney-General has already answered this in the affirmative—whether, because they had issued that originating summons, the trust with which they are concerned is not validated by the Bill. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that that was the intention. In other words, if an originating summons was issued, designed to construe the trust or something of that sort, and it had been issued before the crucial date, then nothing in this Bill would have the effect of validating the trust?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Sir F. Soskice: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that, may I say

that that is perhaps not quite fair. It is really a little hard on the trustees that it should depend upon the accident of whether before that date they had issued a summons as to whether the trust could be validated or not. Surely the Bill should validate the trust irrespective of that. I would like the Attorney-General to consider it between now and the Committee stage.

Mr. Graham Page: If I may develop that point further. Does it not follow from what the Attorney-General has said that if those in that position now withdraw the action before this Bill comes into effect, they will get the benefit of the Act?

Sir F. Soskice: Taking the point at first blush, I should have thought that that is not altogether clear. The relevant words are that the Act shall not apply for the purpose of any legal proceedings begun before the crucial date. One view of the wording is that if proceedings have been started—even though withdrawn—the Act shall not apply to the trust to which the proceedings relate.

The Attorney-General: I would not like there to be any misunderstanding about this. I have not considered the point, but I think my hon. Friend will bear in mind this possibility. Supposing there were infants who might be affected, it would not be proper to withdraw the proceedings. At least, my hon. Friends who have knowledge of Chancery matters so hold.

Sir F. Soskice: What clearly emerges from the hon. Member's question is that the matter obviously requires—and I am quite sure the Attorney-General will give it—further consideration in due course.
With great deference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would have suggested as a matter of pure drafting that perhaps the intention he has indicated is not carried out by the terms of the Bill. 1 say that because the provisions of Clause 1 are imperative. They provide—whether or not proceedings are begun to establish it—that the trusts which are within the scope of Clause 1 are validated to the extent indicated by Clause 1; and 1 cannot see anything which, consistently with the wording of Clause 1, would make the validation of the trust depend on whether or not proceedings had been begun before the


crucial date, I wondered if the proceedings referred to in Clause 4, subsection (1), were proceedings begun by a party claiming to have some adverse right—and only those proceedings. I will not pursue that, otherwise one is plunging further into the depths of abstraction.
I wonder whether, in the form he has given to Clause 3, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not being perhaps rather over-generous to persons having adverse claims? The Ellis case and the Oxford Group case surely disclosed that the real need for this particular Measure is to validate trusts which—at any rate so far as the great bulk of them are concerned—were inadvertently so drafted as to be invalid because they include some non-charitable purpose. In the great majority of cases I should have thought that those trusts were originally designed under the then existing law to be charitable trusts.
I should have thought that it could be said with some force that one should not be over-tender to persons who seek to raise adverse claims which, so far as they are concerned, will merely be windfalls which they did not expect and have no moral right to expect. I would ask the Attorney-General to give some thought to that particular part of the Bill when considering it further.
The Attorney-General has said that he is not able to state what is the policy of the Government with regard to other matters dealt with by the Nathan Committee. But the Nathan Committee, as he said, has covered a very large area of ground in relation to the law affecting trusts. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to tell us that the Government are not turning their back upon those other proposals but are still actively considering them. I think I am right in saying that the Lord Chancellor said in another place that there would be a White Paper showing the Government's intentions in regard to the report, and I hope the Attorney-General can assure the House that the Government are giving consideration to the many other proposals.
One proposal which intrigues me personally is the question: What is the meaning of a charity in law? Learned judges have from time to time pointed

out the difficulty of formulating any clear concept of what is a charitable trust in law, and it would be a great help to those who are concerned with them if some definition, possibly like the Macnaghten definition, could officially be put forward in the terms of some statutory enactment as a guide which will be followed by those who find themselves in this maze.
I notice that paragraph 126 of the Nathan Report says:
Broadly speaking, the witnesses who were lawyers were against, and those not lawyers began by being in favour of, a new definition.
That suggests to me what I rather suspected, that I am not a lawyer, because I should like to see a new definition if it were possible, although I can understand the difficulty of combining more precision with the necessary elasticity which would be required to be present in any definition that is adopted.
The Nathan Committee called attention to the rules relating to the cy pres doctrine and suggested that they should be recast. I do not want to go into details of that, but I hope the Attorney-General can give consideration to them. Another interesting proposal was that the local authorities should have power to make proposals regarding trusts affecting their areas. Again, I do not want to go further into detail about that, but the Attorney-General will no doubt consider the various proposals made in that connection by Lord Nathan and the other members of his Committee.
I think that concludes the observations I should like to offer on behalf of the Opposition on this Measure. We on this side of the House certainly welcome it. It does correct very effectively, subject to the possible criticisms that I ventured to offer, what is undoubtedly an anomaly. It is a legal accident that these trusts are not valid though for years they have been thought to be valid. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, they find their origin in an unfortunate precedent which has been followed over the years. Personally speaking, I welcome very much this Bill, and I hope the House will agree to give it a Second Reading.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. John Morrison: As a mere layman, it would be impertinent of me to add anything to the remarks made by the Attorney-General and by


the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice). The Bill has been welcomed in this House and in another place, and perhaps it is appropriate for me, as Charity Commissioner, to say a few words. The imperfect trust which this Bill aims to clearing up does not come under the Charity Commission, and, therefore, the Charity Commissioners as such have no duty or wish to give formal or informal advice.
I know that the Charity Commissioners welcome this Bill, and if any additional duties fall to their lot in consequence, they accept and welcome them. I would only add a word of congratulation to those which have already been offered by my right hon. and learned Friend and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to those who worked on the Nathan Committee for what they achieved, and in particular for Chapter 12 of the Report which they issued, and which is the basis for this Bill. There they ask for legislation to deal with their recommendations at as early a date as possible.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) and I certainly welcome the Bill, and for my part I do so no less because it does not go so far as the Nathan Committee recommendations. As my right hon. and learned Friend and the Attorney-General have indicated, anyone who reads the report of that Committee must feel great admiration and gratitude for that monumental work. When it comes to dealing with the recommendations in Chapter 12, however, they seem to go rather further than was necessary for the purpose, and I feel that the Government have been extremely fortunate in having a Chancery Lord Chancellor to deal with this very difficult problem. The matter is dealt with in such a way that it must command the support of anyone who gives consideration at all to this problem.
If I judge aright some of the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend, I approach this subject from a diametrically opposite view to his, though both of us reach the same common sense conclusion. I do not support the view that because there is a charity we should, therefore, exert ourselves in order to validate any mishap that has occurred.

After all, a charity in our law has a very privileged position, for very sound historical reasons, but since a charity obtained this privileged position, economic and social conditions have changed and we are in a different world from the world in which the law on charity grew up and conferred this privilege.
We must bear in mind the whole time that when one is pressing the law out of its normal course in order to assist a charity, one is doing it at the expense of somebody else's right, and I feel most firmly and strongly that we should see as far as we possibly can that the law applies indiscriminately and equally to everybody irrespective of what he or she is. I should particularly like to emphasise that and to express my gratitude for the very clear and strong statements which are contained in paragraphs 534 and 535 of the Report. There is not the time now to read them, much as I should like to do so.
The Nathan Committee, in Chapter 12, appeared to be very much impressed by two considerations. The first was by the representations made by a succession of Attorney-Generals on the difficulties arising out of the Oxford Group and Ellis cases. Those representations, were, of course, very rightly made, but I think it is necessary to bear in mind that when the Attorney-General acts in this capacity he does so in order to put forward considerations that affect the charities because, of course, the Attorney-General has a particular responsibility for charities.
Speaking for myself I think that the Nathan Committee emphasised the effect of tile Oxford Group and Ellis cases rather overmuch. All the Committee did was to apply to a particular set of circumstances some perfectly well-established principles of the law of charity. These were cases which were in quite a different category from the cases which so often come as a great shock to practitioners. They were not in the category of the Knightsbridge case under the Rent Acts.
They merely applied to the facts of their particular cases a perfectly well-established principle of the law applicable to charities—that where a disposition is made and it can be applied to a charitable object or to an independent and separate non-charitable object, then as it


can all be applied to a non-charitable object it is not a charitable disposition. That is sheer commonsense and a perfectly well-established principle. It is different from the cases of ancillary non-charity dispositions, as they are called, where the object is merely to promote the main charitable purpose and, they therefore, can themselves be considered as charitable.
I think that the Committee was perhaps a little overmuch impressed by the two considerations to which I have referred, but it came down firmly in favour of the general principle that concession should be made to charity only if that conclusion were forced upon it. I will not go into detailed considerations of the differences between the recommendations of the Nathan Report and those of the Bill. The Attorney-General drew the distinction very clearly and succinctly in performing the difficult task before him. The Bill makes much more limited provisions than the provisions contained in the Nathan Report, and I welcome that.
I want to see whether I understand what is the scope of the Bill. As I understand it, the wording of Clause 1 (1) has this effect: it applies to trusts which could be used, first, exclusively for charitable purposes but, secondly, in addition, could be used for non-charitable purposes, but, third, could not be used exclusively for non-charitable purposes. That is the effect of Clause 1 (1), as I read it.
In other words, the scope of the Bill is limited to cases, if I may use much less satisfactory wording than that which has been skilfully placed in the Bill, where the primary object is charitable but there are non-charitable independent secondary objects. That is another way of expressing what is covered by the Bill but it is much less skilful than the way used in the Bill. Would the Attorney-General confirm that that interpretation is correct?
I would also briefly mention Clause 4 (1), which has already caused a good deal of trouble. It appears that if proceedings had in fact been started but were abandoned the Bill would apply to the particular trust which was the subject of those proceedings. It is unsatisfactory to leave this matter to inference, and I therefore suggest to the Attorney-General that we

should give consideration to the lacuna in the provisions of the Bill.
Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to cases where a construction summons is taken out in the Chancery Division by trustees, and he says that it is hard that the trust should be penalised in those circumstances. I recognise that there are objections to conceding his point because summonses are often taken out by trustees in the Chancery Division in order to have a matter of construction decided, perhaps at the request of a party which has an adverse interest. That is quite a common method. Or, it might be, as has been pointed out, that infants are involved. I therefore fully recognise the difficulty of making the test of the application of the Bill depend on whether the trustee is the person taking the summons out or commencing the proceedings.
I come to the third point. Let me take the case where, although the trustee has taken out the summons and proceedings have been commenced, nobody is pressing for the proceedings to be carried to a conclusion. If, in those circumstances, the proceedings are not carried to a conclusion, I doubt whether, on the Bill as it stands, they are taken out of the benefits which are conferred by other Clauses of the Bill and that might result in a satisfactory although unstable condition from the point of view of the trustees.
Finally, we may have the position where there are trustees who take out a summons and parties with adverse interests are involved but the parties with adverse interests are in a position to say that they do not want to press their claim. In that case would it not be possible to make it perfectly clear that in those circumstances the trust should be validated?
Obviously Clause 4 (1) gives rise to a good many difficulties and there are matters which should be dealt with in Committee. I mention them now to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I hope it will give him an opportunity of considering the points.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: This is a very curious Bill and, were it not for the fact that the House is anxious to get on to other business, I should have liked to make some criticism of the principle underlying it. It is entirely retro-


spective in operation and deals with an artificial slice in the long history of charities which is bound in the beginning by this shock of the decided cases—a shock which I do not believe is as great as has been suggested—and, in the end, by the coming into force of the Bill. I therefore regard it as curious in point of time, but I do not want to develop that theme. I also think it is too wide in point of space.
As I understand it, Clause 1 (1) includes in this imperfect trust provision any instrument where any of the objects are charitable, even if the predominance of the object is not charitable. It might even cover a general power of appointment. It would certainly cover the situation in which somebody left his residue in trust for various objects, none of which was charitable, but at the end there was one charitable object. It is impossible to say that in such a case the general intention was charitable and that charity must get it all if the other objects fail, for one reason or another—for example, uncertainty or because they involve perpetuity.
I prefer the recommendation on page 126 of the Nathan Report, that in all cases the primary object—not merely one object—of the trust should have been charitable. If the space of the Bill were confined in that sense, a great many of the objections which otherwise will, I think, be forthcoming would be met. I shall not detain the House further.

6.59 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I do not know whether the Attorney-General hopes to get the Bill by seven o'clock, but he has only one minute left in which to reply to some pertinent questions put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice). I welcome the Bill. I have had some slight experience as secretary of a small charitable trust, and my father has for many years been secretary and is now chairman of a much larger charitable trust and, as a person interested in charitable trusts, I want to urge that the Bill should not be the only part of the Nathan Committee Report to be put into effect.
I know that there are some parts of the Report on which there is bound to be a considerable divergence of opinion, but there are other parts which I think it is necessary to put into effect within a reasonable time. If the Government feel

that the full provisions of the Report are too controversial to be included in a major Bill, I should have thought that they could at least bring forward a Bill of miscellaneous provisions dealing with charitable matters wider than this Bill.
I am not quarrelling in the least with the Bill, because we are told that it is urgently necessary that it should be put into effect, but I hope that the Government will not take it that the welcome given to the Bill is in any sense—

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Mr. Speaker: I observe that there are two Instructions after the Second Reading of this Bill. They both concern the question of pollution of the atmosphere by smoke. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), in whose name the first Instruction stands, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stress), in whose name the second Instruction stands—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert provisions requiring the Common Council to publish an analysis of the atmosphere annually for at least ten years, commencing in the year 1954—
would agree to a general debate on the two matters, the Questions being put separately later.

Sir Herbert Williams: I think the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and I have the same general purpose in mind, and I imagine that the debate could take place on the Instruction in my name, if the hon. Gentleman is agreeable.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am not quite sure whether the debate would necessarily take place on the Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), but I am sure the House would find a general debate more acceptable.

Mr. Speaker: I will first of all call the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, East; on that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central can make his speech, and then there can be a general discussion. I will thereafter put the Questions separately if so desired.

7.1 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 4.

It may seem a little unusual that I, who happen to be a Liveryman of the City of London and therefore entitled to vote in their various proceedings, should apparently be opposing something which they want to do, but fundamentally that is not my purpose. My main purpose is to obtain a debate on air pollution. As hon. Members are aware, as a result of what happened 15 months ago Her Majesty's Government appointed a Committee to study this problem, and the interim Report has been available in the Vote Office for some months.
I do not think the Clause which the City of London have got in their Bill is very satisfactory, and in due course I shall make some comments on that. I have no desire to go to a Division on the inclusion of the Clause, but I think it is desirable that steps should be taken to remedy this nuisance. I have made those preliminary remarks in order that hon. Members who are not quite familiar with the purpose of some of us who have tried to get a debate on this important subject of air pollution, may know what our purpose is.
Fifteen months ago a major tragedy took place in the Greater Metropolitan area, and, judging by Press reports, I think my constituency was the first victim. I remember reading in one of the evening newspapers that the number of deaths in Croydon due to bronchial and other troubles was so great that the undertakers could not bury people in time. From that moment I have taken great interest in this strange problem. I hope that the conditions which prevailed then will never be repeated. There were very peculiar atmospheric conditions which lasted for five days, and the results were very serious indeed.
Before I go further, I must declare a minor interest. I think it is very minor, as my remarks will indicate. I happen

to be chairman of a company which makes automatic stokers. When automatic stokers are used, coal is burned more efficiently than it otherwise is. That, however, is not my primary purpose in speaking, but I thought I had better declare that interest in case there is any misunderstanding. My purpose is to try to avert another tragedy of the kind that happened 15 months ago.
I do not know whether everybody realises the magnitude of the tragedy. I remember putting down a Question to the Minister of Health asking how many deaths had resulted from that strange atmospheric condition which prevailed for about five days. Naturally, it is not possible to be sure, but the Department thought there were about 4,000 deaths in those five days. Hitler bombed us—he bombed Croydon very badly—but in six years he killed only 40,000. The fact that one-tenth of that number of deaths occurred as a result of five days of smog shows what a strange condition has arisen.
I have read this interim report, and I have consulted a large number of people. I have never taken more trouble in getting information for a debate than I did for this one, so I may be over-prepared, which is sometimes a bad thing. It sometimes spoils one's speech if one is over-prepared. I have taken an enormous amount of trouble. I have consulted doctors, chemists, fuel conversion experts and all sorts of people whom I thought might have information bearing on this very strange problem.
I am quite satisfied that scientific knowledge at the moment is inadequate and that nobody has the answer to the problem. The purpose of myself and my hon. Friends who are supporting me is to try to stimulate interest in a problem of outstanding magnitude, because although we may have a major tragedy only occasionally, I am quite satisfied that a lot of people die all the year round, in small numbers, in penny packets, from this cause. We get terribly excited if there is a railway disaster. The Member for the constituency concerned asks a Private Notice Question. But nobody asks a Private Notice Question about people dying from this cause, although such deaths occur every day. I am trying to stimulate interest not merely in this Chamber but outside in this very grave problem
I happen to have been brought up as an engineer. I have forgotten most of what I learned, but I did not quite forget it all. I was more of an engineer, mathematician and physicist than I ever was a chemist, but every engineer knows enough about chemistry to be able to tell whether the other fellow is leading him up the garden path.
What comes out of a chimney?—a great variety of things, I have written them down. First there is soot, which is finely divided carbon. It is virtually amorphous. Then there is sulphur dioxide, which is the vital thing that we have got to discuss. Next there is grit, which is very unpleasant. I think the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is always objecting about the grit which falls on his constituency.
Another thing is carbon dioxide, which is what we used to call carbonic acid gas, and it is very unpleasant. It will not support life, but it is not poisonous. I believe that the Dead Sea is so called because there is about a foot deep of carbonic acid gas on its shores, which causes small animals to die. The nostrils and mouths of human beings are such that one does not die from carbonic acid gas.
Then there is the dreadful poison, carbon monoxide, which results in people who are working on their cars with the engines running in their garages suddenly dying. They cannot smell, taste or see it. It is a very bad poison. I hope that on this last point we shall have some contribution from our medical experts.
Then there are tarry particles. These are the result of the gasification of coal. As everybody knows, if tar is rubbed on the body frequently, the result is skin cancer. I hope some consideration will be paid to tarry particles. Whether this is worse than cigarette smoking I do not know, but my impression is that it is worse. These things that come out of chimneys are the cause of our troubles. They not only come out of factory and power station chimneys, but also domestic chimneys. Indeed, many people think that the domestic chimney is the worst of the lot. Whether it is, no one knows, for there cannot be any accurate statistics on the subject.
Of course, the domestic chimney is not as bad as it used to be because there are

not so many chimneys spouting smoke. Most of us have electric cookers and heaters and gas cookers and heaters. The number of fires burning in the ordinary house is very much smaller than it used to be. The picture has completely changed. I came to London in 1909, and when I used to undress at night my collar was in a filthy condition. It was covered with dirt, with soot. It was very unpleasant, but it was good for the laundries. However, the soot did not kill people. I see several distinguished doctors in the House, and I hope they will all join in the discussion. I do not think that soot is the major trouble. I think it is sulphur dioxide.
If hon. Members will take the trouble to read this Report, if they have not already done so, they will find that in certain respects it is rather inadequate. I do not blame the Committee for that. It is clear that the scientific knowledge of this subject is inadequate, and what is needed is an intensification of research so as to find the causes of this trouble. Diagnosis must precede cure. Then there will come the difficulty of finding a cure, which, I think, will be exceedingly great.
Let everybody who talks about this subject say to himself, "Sulphur dioxide." There are in the country a lot of domestic fires, antiquated, very bad, with masses of smoke going up the chimneys. I think a good case could be made out, although I hate controls and regulations, for a greater enforcement of the laws and regulations concerning chimneys on fire. The first and simplest prevention of chimney fires is more frequent sweeping. Whether we should prescribe that everybody should have his chimney swept once a year or twice a year, I hesitate to say. If we were to do so, there would be, perhaps, a violent reaction from the public. However, I am quite sure that the domestic fire is an evil, and I have done my best in my domestic life to use domestic fires as little as possible.
Smoke is no new issue. In recent years, much before the tragedy of 15 months ago, local authorities were promoting their Private Bills, having seen what the City of Manchester had done, to get powers to establish smokeless zones. I think 17 local authorities altogether obtained those powers. Manchester and


Coventry are the only two that have given affect to them. I understand that ray hon. Friend the Member for Withing-ton (Sir R. Cary) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later on, because in the central part of Manchester the local authority has established a smokeless zone, with some success, I gather. I think the area is quite a small one, but I think there has been considerable success. However, my hon. Friend will tell you all about that when he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
The other local authority is that of Coventry. I do not think we can draw any conclusions from what has happened at Coventry, because the area where the smokeless zone was established was the part of the city that Hitler blasted and there are only two domestic premises in the area where the smokeless zone exists. So I do not think we can draw any conclusion from there.
The 15 other local authorities that obtained the powers have done nothing. Local authorities are very dilatory, and they are rather like sheep. If the sheep see one of their number go through a hole they all follow. So when the local authorities saw one getting these powers they all thought they would like to get them, but they have not all done anything about them. I am concerned with the City Corporation, which is rather like that, as I shall explain in a few minutes' time.
Then we have the problem of the motor car. The motor car consumes petrol or diesel oil. The buses are driven mainly on diesel oil. I am certain that there is a lot of sulphur in petroleum. If we could see it I am sure we should see noxious gases coming from buses and motor cars. These noxious gases are invisible in the main. I think sulphur dioxide is virtually invisible. I know carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are invisible.
Of course, the emission of gases from motor cars and buses is at a very low level. Many people are worried about the effects of motor transport in relation to this whole problem. I do not think it is a very serious problem. All these gases are heavier than air. Therefore, they are close to the ground. Any small dog, any cat or pigeon in London would have died from these noxious gases were

they not dispersed. I never remember seeing small dogs or pigeons or other birds dead in the streets of London, and I have wondered why they were not killed by noxious gases from motor cars. It is a rather interesting point. Other hon. Members who are scientific and medical experts may take a different view, but somehow or another these emissions do not appear to me to do much harm, because if they did all these small creatures would be dead. I wish we could apply sulphur dioxide to the starlings in Trafalgar Square. However, they are too high up.
Roughly, on the average, coal contains 1½per cent, of sulphur and petroleum of 4 per cent. It is very important that people should realise the difference between that 4 per cent, and 1½ per cent. Sulphur dioxide combined with moisture, according to my chemical knowledge, although I am not very good at chemistry, produces sulphurous acid. Combined with oxygen from the air it becomes sulphuric acid, and I believe that that is the main cause of the attack on our health and the buildings in our cities. Sulphur dioxide is the father and mother of sulphuric acid. Therefore, if we can reduce the sulphur dioxide we can protect our public buildings and our health.
I have discussed this matter with friends of mine, doctors and others, and I have been supplied with some rather interesting information about sulphur. If the House will bear with me I should like to read out some of this information. We do not advertise doctors, so I will call my informant a Harley Street doctor. He tells me that the two products which cause more harm to health are sulphur dioxide and the particles of tarry matter, but he doubts whether particles of soot, ash or grit do much harm. He points out that the body has its own machinery for arresting the descent of solid particles in the lungs and bringing them up to the surface. He says:
First of all there is the filter effect of the hairs in the nose, and then there are the cilia in the windpipe which are like minute hairs which work constantly in an upward direction and which carry small solid particles back to the mouth for rejection. The smog mask will filter most of the solid particles, but this, in my view, is the least important part of the problem. Sulphur dioxide is intensely damaging to people who have asthma or any chest condition which is associated with spasm of the air passages. A great many elderly people get


a bronchitis during the winter which is associated with a certain amount of broncho-spasm, and this is greatly intensified by sulphur in the atmosphere. This makes it extremely difficult for them to get air in and out of their lungs. It produces violent attacks of coughing, which puts a tremendous strain upon the heart muscle. Sulphur dioxide is not filtered by any kind of mask, and it seems to me the only way to reduce the morbidity and mortality is by preventing the pollution of the atmosphere with sulphur dioxide.

Dr. Stross: Hear, hear.

Sir H. Williams: I am glad to hear a medical man agree with that statement. I have consulted my personal doctor who is rather knowledgeable on the subject, and he takes the same view.
The Committee on Air Pollution in paragraph 5 of its Report says:
Both medical opinion and chemical investigation indicate that the deleterious effects of the oxides of sulphur are greatly enhanced by the presence of smoke particles and our conclusion therefore is that the first objective should be to prevent the emission of coal smoke and oil smoke, and of grit. By smoke we mean solid particles of soot, fine dust and minute liquid droplets of tar and oil.
What I urge is that we should have a good deal of scientific investigation into this problem because I do not think anybody knows the whole truth. I have learnt a great deal as a result of my inquiries during the last three months. What I know about the subject would fill more books than most people's knowledge of it would, but what I do not know about it would fill all the books in the world. We are in an intense difficulty in that we do not know the facts.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We are agreed that action should be taken.

Sir H. Williams: But what action?
Clause 4 says not a word about sulphur dioxide. Clause 4 (9) says:
Nothing in this section shall apply to smoke emitted from a railway locomotive.
I have in my hand the statutes enacted between 1845 and 1849. When our predecessors passed the Railway Clauses Act in 1845 they enacted Section 114, which stated that every locomotive engine to be used on railways should, if it used coal or other similar fuel emitting smoke, be constructed on the principle of consuming its own smoke, and if any engine was not so constructed, the com-

pany or authority using it should forfeit £5 for every day during which the engine was used on the railways.
The year 1845 is a long way back. Yet my friends of the City Corporation have been blackmailed by the Transport Commission to include in their Clause:
Nothing in this section shall apply to smoke emitted from a railway locomotive.
That is monstrous. As an engineer, I know that there are difficulties in producing a locomotive which can consume its own smoke, but the forfeitures of £5 which ought to have accumulated as penalties ought now to be enough to pay off the National Debt.
I hope that the City Corporation will stand up to the British Transport Commission—I do not say that they can do it at once—and insist that they shall not bring masses of smoke into the City of London and, even worse, into other parts of London, if other Bills are promoted to prevent this appalling pollution of the atmosphere. The railway locomotive is at its worst when it is at rest in a railway station.
Considerable efforts have been made to eliminate sulphur dioxide from power stations. Only three power stations in the world have ever had plant designed for the purpose. One is the power station built by the Fulham Corporation and now owned by the British Electricity Authority. It has a sulphur dioxide washing plant, but it is out of action. There are two others left in the world. One is the Battersea Power Station, which uses coal, and the other is the Bankside Power Station, which uses oil, just the other side of the river opposite St. Paul's.
These devices are not only failures; in my judgment, they are worse than failures and are aggravating the problem. I am told—I have made considerable inquiries—that the washing, which involves fantastic quantities of water, eliminates about 85 per cent, of the sulphur content. But it has a tragic result. It so cools the fumes that when they come up the chimney their temperature is so low that they are heavier than air. Any hon. Member can test this any time he is on the Chelsea Embankment. If he looks at the Battersea Power Station, he will see that the smoke does not go rapidly up into


the sky. We should remember what a chimney is. It is a curious kind of pump which draws the smoke up, and the smoke should come out at the top at a considerable speed and go right up into the air.
If hon. Members will look at Batter-sea Power Station they will find that, instead of that, the smoke is pluming downwards. Although 85 per cent, of the sulphur has been removed, the amount of stuff which is coming down to earth is much greater than if the plant had been entirely wiped out. I am told that the cost of the installation at both Battersea and Bank-side was about £1½million. I am also told that in the case of Battersea it is equivalent to adding 8s. per ton to the cost of the coal, which means adding to the price of electricity, and yet the plant is failing in its purpose.
The great tragedy is Bankside. All the experts on amenities said that we must not destroy St. Paul's Cathedral. I agree; but today St. Paul's Cathedral is in greater peril of destruction through sulphuric acid because there has been insistence upon the Bankside Power Station using oil fuel instead of coal, with a 4 per cent, sulphur content instead of the 1½per cent, in coal. Bankside also has the washing plant. St. Paul's is in much greater peril than if its friends had not taken the action to insist upon the British Electricity Authority installing that plant.
In passing, I understand that the Arts Council insisted upon the design of the Bankside Power Station. The result is the filthiest looking chimney that I have ever seen in my life. Hon. Members who look across at the power station will see a foul looking chimney; it has nothing like the grace and charm of the Battersea Power Station chimneys. We should never allow the Arts Council to do anything at any time. I have spoken at greater length than I intended, but it is an interesting problem in relation to scientific, engineering, social and health factors and everything else.
A paragraph in the Report deplores the fact that bonfires should be lit during fog. About four months ago during a fog a gentleman came to see me at my office and said "I think the people in

Hyde Park are barmy. It is very foggy, but they have been burning up the leaves there, and so the place is foggier than ever." That is an attack on Her Majesty's Government. Why bonfires which produce masses of smoke should be lit whenever there is a lot of fog, I do not understand. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will pass on to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works that in future bonfires should not be lit in Hyde Park when fog is about. It must not be thought that every day of the week is Guy Fawkes day.
I have started a debate which I hope will be fruitful in stimulating people to think about a problem which, in some parts, at the moment is intractable. It is a very difficult problem. None of us, not even the scientists, know all about it. I know that a lot of research is going on. As a result of my inquiries during the last three months I have learnt a great deal from experts of one kind or another, from fuel combustion experts, doctors and everyone else who is interested.
Let us play our part in stimulating inquiry into the vitally important problem of preserving our buildings, our health and our laundry. All these things are important because, one way or another, they are all part of the cost of living or the cost of dying. There is a great problem to be solved, and it can only be solved if the House of Commons, as it has so often done in the past, can stimulate public interest in the matter.

7.29 p.m.

Sir Alfred Bossom: I beg to second the Motion.
My remarks will be confined to a very limited field. I should like to say at once that I am very strongly in favour of smoke abatement. The good intentions of the Bill are very much to be desired, but they do not go far enough. There are two very serious omissions. There is no provision in respect of two conditions which have been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). However, generally speaking, we have not had much experience in the matter in England. We have experienced the unfortunate results that have occurred, and we have suffered the damage and the ill effects.
Many hon. Members will remember how parts of the stone pinnacles and pieces of stone used to fall off the river facade of the House on to the Terrace. Stones of the wall have had to be dug out and replaced by new ones, as anyone can see today. I understand that the cost of that was double the cost of the original erection of the whole facade. That sort of thing is going on all over London, and it is undoubtedly due to sulphuric acid penetrating and disintegrating the stones. There is no mention in the Bill of anything to attempt to prevent that.
My hon. Friend referred to St. Paul's Cathedral. I was one of those who objected to the erection of the power station on the other side of the river because of these very serious possible conditions. But it is there, and I believe that as the years go by we shall see damage to St. Paul's in the same way as we have seen it on the exterior of this building, unless some preventive action is taken. I think that the winds which have been blowing smoke over the river from the Doulton Factory in the last century have a lot to do with the damage to this building.
There is one city in the world which has had more experience of this than we have had, and with which we in this House have a close relationship, and that is Pittsburgh. In Pittsburgh they have in the university a British room which is made out of the fragments, if I may so call them, of our old blitzed Chamber, which were taken to America with the permission of the Speaker of that day, and which has been erected there in what is there called the Cathedral of Learning. At one time, that great city was the dirtiest in America. Four years ago there were passed local ordinances that no smoke was to be allowed to come out of any chimney anywhere except from hospitals, and that hospitals which were started by voluntary contributions would have this prohibition applied to them, and they could have no further emission of smoke, after five years.
I was over there last year, and I happened to see a building, of which I was the architect in the earlier part of this century, constructed then of light glazed tile. When I saw it 25 years ago its walls were blacker than the dark oak walls of this building today. Now the

smoke is stopped and the exterior has been brushed down and it is as clean as when it was built. So are dozens of the other buildings. If Pittsburgh can accomplish these things, we ought to be able to do the same here and I am certain that with an effort we can.
Pittsburgh today is abnormally clean— it is one of the cleanest cities in the world. The owners of the buildings have taken to having their buildings being given a cleaning treatment, and one can go round the city and see buildings as bright as the buildings in Washington where there are no factories or manufacturers at all. It is cleaner than any city in England except a few on the coast. In New York, which by nature is a fairly clean city, they are now advertising: "We are going to make our city as clean as Pittsburgh"; but they have not succeeded in doing that yet.
My hon. Friend has just referred to the British Transport Commission having its railway engines exempt from this control of smoke. What has New York done about this matter? New York has laid it down that no train shall come within a radius of about 15 miles of New York unless it is moved by electricity. The New Yorkers have banned all smoke coming into the centre of that town from the railway. As my hon. Friend stated, over 100 years ago, in 1845, we were told that we must not have any smoke from railway engines. In 1868, the Regulations of Railways Act required that every engine must consume its own smoke. But we have done nothing about that. We must do something about it, if we are to end this most undesirable condition.
I do not want to go into technical details about smog, such as we had in 1952. Incidentally, bad as it is, that condition is improving, because I see that though there were 4,000 killed in 1952, 12,000 died in 1880 from the same cause. We are getting better, but the improvement is nothing like good enough or quick enough. During the smog of 1952 the total number of applications for beds in London hospitals was double the number at that time of the year, and four times the normal number of people were suffering from respiratory diseases. There is no proved connection yet between fog and that sickness situation, but the coincidence is so remarkable that we cannot ignore it.


First, we had the fog and no wind, then there was a number of deaths and double the normal number of applicants for hospital beds. All these things cannot happen at one time without some connection between them. I think that these are matters which we must actively inquire into now.
As I have said, there are two serious omissions from the Bill. First there is no mention of an intensified research campaign to ascertain the exact chemical relationship, as I am sure every medical man in this House and outside will agree. This we must have. We must also have a wide-ranging constructional investigation to see what can be done in the vast number of the different chimneys themselves. Smoke is coming from small houses and big houses, factories and power stations—they are all sending filth into the atmosphere. We have to see if there is anything that we can construct or add to these chimneys so that the smoke is consumed and detrimental fumes eliminated. We must do this; we must not let the smoke damage people and buildings. We must not have the development of smog on the scale that we have had it in the past. London can be infinitely cleaner and healthier; and it is our task here in Parliament to do our very utmost to bring that about.

7.36 p.m.

Dr. Baraett Stross: I beg to move, "That—

Mr. Speaker: We can only have one Question before the House at a time. I will give the hon. Member an opportunity at the end of the debate to move his Instruction if he so desires. He can now make his speech, but he will have to make it on this Motion.

Dr. Stross: I am sure that the House and the country are indebted to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) for his speech, for the work which he has done in preparing it, and for the excellent results which, I am sure, we shall get as a result of the publicity given to this matter.
I find myself in agreement with the whole of his attitude throughout his speech. The fact that my hon. Friend and myself were insisting that there should be research so as to give us in-

formation does not in any way mitigate our agreement with what the hon. Member has said.
At the end of his speech, he mentioned the question of tarry particles. He did not dilate on that point. In one country which we know of—I am speaking of Iceland—the whole of the capital city and the whole of the surrounding area is entirely free of smoke, and the incidence of cancer of the skin in that country is exceedingly low. In the whole of that country they have only had four cases in five years, 1944–49,. and I wish that the incidence of this disease in this country were similar.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Manchester, and I note that in the first leading article in "The Manchester Guardian" this morning his name is mentioned, and the whole article is devoted to this subject. I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen it. It is a very interesting article. I am not going to quote from it at length, but what it asks is what we are asking here tonight.
We are asking what the Government are going to do about this matter. The article states that until recently the Government did not know their own mind and felt rather luke-warm about the problem. The Government felt: how can we encourage people to have smokeless homes if there are not enough appliances to substitute for the old faulty ones and if we have not enough supplies of smokeless fuel. That is understandable. But today the situation is different. We are told that there is plenty of coke available, although it is not easily transported to peoples' houses when they want it, for certain reasons. It is not popular with those who sell it because it is bulky to carry in small bags and they do not appear to be making much profit, so they prefer to peddle their dirty coal and nutty slack instead of clean fuel.
We have to overcome problems of this type, and we ask the Government to assist us because the preludes towards assistance are now present in a way in which they were not present a few years ago. It is right to say that Manchester was the pioneer city in this matter, and although I am the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, I think that I am able to say that what Manchester does today London does tomorrow. It has been noted that at two


observation posts in the City of London the amount of solid matter that falls per square mile per month is 20 tons. That is about half the figure for the dirtiest part of Manchester.
It is not enough just to know how many solid particles fall. Everyone who agrees with what the hon. Member for Croydon, East has said knows that what we want to know is how much sulphur dioxide there is, and how much is being turned by local atmospheric conditions into sulphuric acid mist, for it is this mist which damages the buildings, and it cannot be beneficial to the mucus membranes of our bronchial tubes. My medical colleagues can well understand how easily sulphuric acid mist, created out of sulphur dioxide or sulphur trioxide —which is also emitted—must irritate the bronchial tubes and cause asthma and chronic bronchitis.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) spoke about the smog of 1880.

Sir A. Bossom: It was 1868.

Dr. Stross: I have a number of data about different attacks of smog, but I have not got particulars of that one. I have details about 1873, 1880, 1892, 1948 and 1952. I shall not trouble the House with those details because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall only say that in London alone, in the six years from 1941 to 1946 inclusive, fogs have occurred in December, January, and November, in that order of frequency. During those years fogs occurred in those months on 23 per cent, of the occasions with a visibility of less than 550 yards and on 08 per cent, of the occasions with a visibility of less than 30 yards— really black fog, where it was almost impossible to see. On six occasions the fog lasted for two to three days, and on two occasions for three to four days.
During the last attack it was noticed that the cloud of poisonous material, which lay all along the valley and enveloped us, was not very high. I am advised that Blackheath, which is only 150 feet above sea level, was at one time during the attack almost entirely clear, and that on one occasion Battersea Power Station chimney was seen quite clearly protruding above this fog. That chimney is 337 feet high.
Now I come to the question of what is the real danger to us, smoke or sulphur dioxide, or something else, and, when we have made up our minds about it, what action should we take. I have never heard the problem posed so clearly as it was by the hon. Member for Croydon, East tonight. Smoke was noted most at County Hall, Lambeth, Westminster, Southwark and North Woolwich. I believe in that order of concentration. That smoke was between three and 10 times the normal concentration, and the sulphur dioxide was found to be roughly six times its normal concentration. That, again, was worst at County Hall, Westminster, and in the City. The correct tiling to do is to attempt to clean up any one, or all, of those areas.
When we examine the matter we find that the concentration of sulphur dioxide runs parallel with the concentration of smoke. The less smoke, the less sulphur dioxide. That provides us with a line of attack. That does not mean that if there is no smoke there is necessarily no sulphur dioxide, but we are attacking the problem in the right way if we get rid of the smoke. The poisonous effect of sulphur dioxide is said to arise at a concentration of 10 parts per million, inhaled over a few hours. In the London smog, however, it never rose to more than 13 parts per million, and we are left to wonder whether it was sulphur dioxide alone which was responsible for the trouble.
The hon. Member for Croydon, East also referred to this point, and doubted whether sulphur dioxide alone was responsible. He mentioned carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid mist. We are left to wonder whether there is some unholy marriage between these substances. They act synergistically—which means "working together "; it is a horrible word, but it is the one which is used—and bring about much more damage than any one of them working alone.
All we can do is to echo what has already been said tonight. We do not know enough about the subject, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said, we know enough to make a start. We should start by cleaning up not one district but a much wider area. The City is going to try to clean itself up. but the prevailing


wind is such that it may get less benefit from the attempt than its neighbours. To get the best results we must have smokeless areas in Westminster, Fulham, Chelsea and Kensington. That is the minimum requirement if we want to achieve a real improvement in this area and save the priceless buildings in Westminster.
Some of us are a little suspicious about the change in the use of the domestic fire grate. A more efficient domestic grate has been installed which burns economically and will keep a fire burning all night long. This is a great benefit to people who are not blessed with servants and who have to get up in the morning to make their own fires. That applies to most of us. We sometimes have to arise very early, or our wives do, to see us off to work. Most people put slack and ashes on these modern fires overnight, and during the dark hours they give off smoke.
The atmosphere is then more moist than it is during the day, and that is just when we get the conditions which form a prelude to the manufacture of smog. With a power station giving off water vapour into the atmosphere and factories situated nearby pouring smoke out of their chimneys, the combination of moisture and smoke tends to cause smog.
Those who live in industrial areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester, or even here in London, should do everything they can to take the advice which has been given by the hon. Member for Croydon, East. We should insist upon the Government forcing local authorities to act more quickly than they have done. Up till now they have been the pace-makers, and the Government, in their wisdom, folly, or ignorance—I do not know which it is, and I am not blaming them, but I shall be from now on—have been compelled to soft-pedal and say, "You cannot move as quickly as this." We should take note of what Pittsburgh has done, as described by the hon. Member for Maidstone, and move forward very much more quickly.

7.50 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) for making it possible for us, for the first time since the original Measure proposed by the

Manchester Corporation, to consider on a rather wider basis the establishment of smokeless zones.
As I listened to the hon. Baronets I could not help thinking of a story told to the House two weeks ago by my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. H. Strauss) about the American who was so horrified at what he had read in the newspapers about smoking that he gave up reading. So, as I listened to the hon. Baronets, I could not help thinking that with all these new terrors in the atmosphere—sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide—much the most hopeful course for the average citizen would be to give up reading. Perhaps, in another direction, that might alter the representations made by hon. Gentlemen opposite three weeks ago about the threat of under-employment in certain industries.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East for paying a tribute to Manchester for taking the initial step in the creation of a smokeless zone. Manchester was once described by John Stuart Mill as the vestibule of hell. In the old days it was a place where it not only rained but which existed under an umbrella of dense industrial smoke which, while it might have poisoned its citizens sometimes, did not detract from their energies in making it one of the great Victorian assets of the Industrial Revolution.
It has always seemed to me to be fitting that the great city of Manchester and its corporation should be the pioneers of the smokeless zone, and I only hope that, when this Bill reaches its final stages, the City of London will embark upon the same course for the centre of our City here. The powers taken by the Manchester City Council were obtained in the 1945–46 Session of Parliament but, of course, it was not possible to proceed at once.
Much negotiation, both with occupiers of houses and users of fuel, and with the different boards, had to be undertaken before eventually, in an area consisting of 105 acres, Manchester was able to proceed with the establishment of the central smokeless zone, after due notice, on 1st May, 1952. That has been so successful that it is now intended to extend that central area to between 450


and 500 acres, which is only 100 acres less than the 600 acres required by Clause 4 of this Bill.
Of course, when we reach the outer fringes of the city we come up against the purely residential areas. It is much easier to begin a smokeless zone on corporation estates, where there is some degree of uniformity. Where, however, there is freehold or tenanted property, a certain degree of public re-education is required in regard to the burning of fuel, and much may be required in the manufacture of new installations of heating apparatus to take the place of the ordinary fire grate. I think I shall be expressing the sentiments of everyone in the House when I say that one of the greatest comforts in the world is a good open coal fire. Often when travelling round badly hit areas in the bad old days of unemployment, people said to me that, even before a little more food or warm clothing, they would like some fire put back into their grates.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stress) raised the question of the fuel supply to individual consumers and small owners of property. I think he read, as I did, the extremely interesting leading article in today's "Manchester Guardian," where the following paragraph appears. I invite my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to pass it on to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. It states:
At a recent meeting with representatives of towns with smokeless-zone powers the Ministry of Fuel admitted that it found itself embarrassed by a carry-over at the end of the winter of a million and a half tons of coke, with no prospect of getting rid of it unless the authorities made haste to establish many more smokeless zones.
That paragraph in the centre of the leading article in the "Manchester Guardian" prompted me to telephone this afternoon to the superintendent in charge of the coke order department of the North Thames Gas Board. I was shocked to learn that the citizens of London are being charged £6 3s. 2d. for a ton of coke. That price is far too high.
Of course coal is sorted into eight groups. Before the war I used to represent in this House a mining constituency, and I used to watch at the pithead how

difficult it was to sort coal on the screens into three groups. Now we sort coal into eight groups and sell them at graded prices beginning with the top group at £7 3s. 2d. a ton and ending with the eighth group at £5 3s. 2d. a ton. It is a little difficult for the average housewife to turn to an alternative fuel at those prices and to find that, without variation, the price of coke is £6 3s. 2d. a ton.
In establishing smokeless zones and to encourage the burning of that most essential fuel, coke, which is part and parcel of this plan, I beg the Government to consider giving a 15 per cent, discount to tempt people to turn away from the ordinary coal-burning grate to the new forms of installation in which the smokeless coke-burning fire can have its greatest effect.
I want to add one further word in praise of the City of Manchester, which it is my privilege to represent in this House. I was a little troubled in my mind three years ago as to whether the plan for the smokeless zone would be a great disappointment. I have been astonished to discover how successful the experiment has been, and how justified will be the extension of the central area. A smokeless zone does not mean, of course, an escape from the desperate fog we suffered, not only in London but in other cities, in that tragic December week-end in 1952, when I think the death roll came to 4,000.
I remember that on that afternoon of Saturday, 5th December, I left my constituency by road at 4.30, though I was begged by many of my constituents not to make the attempt. In driving with my wife from the edge of Derby and again from the edge of Bedfordshire I encountered no more than conventional country evening mist. As I approached the traffic lights on the rising ground at Barnet I said to my wife, "This looks like journey's end." Within five minutes after passing over the brow of the ridge in St. Albans I dropped into the desperate fog of London, and it was rather like flopping into a bowl of brown Windsor soup.
If it had not been for the gallant energies of a young man who was driving from Wigan in a lorry with very bright tail lights, I should not have made London at all. It took me four hours to get from St. Albans to the centre of


London, but not to my own home in Westminster. I found myself in the London Passenger Transport Board's garage at Dalston. The chief deputy-inspector who was on duty that night saw that I was suitably entertained until, at 9 o'clock next morning, piloted by a 'bus, I was able to reach my own home in Westminster. I hope that this debate will lead to other elaborations by which we may make our cities brighter, cleaner and more pleasant places in which to live.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) have rendered a great service to this House, to the country in general, and to the industrial areas in particular, by initiating this debate. Whilst listening to the debate, I have been thinking of the past 20 years and of how the debate revealed one of the organic weaknesses in our special form of democracy. All the theory and all the time spent on this subject are not an atom of use unless they are translated into action. I have sat in this House with some of the finest characters that it has been my privilege to work with, and I remember how, in my early experience here, night after night we raised this issue, but relatively speaking very little action has been taken in the case of the industrial areas.
I remember a very distinguished Member of this House, Miss Rathbone, saying to me that one had to raise an issue again and again for 25 years before it could begin to be acceptable. That might have been all right in the old slow coach days, but we are now living in the jet age. People are looking to this House, to the local authorities and to people who accept responsibility to act in a modern, mid-20th century way and not be content to travel at the speed of the Victorian period.
When one tries to have this problem of smoke abatement dealt with, one is met almost everywhere with complacency, inertia and frustration. I hope that our debate tonight marks a new start. Up to now I have been in almost complete agreement with everything that has been said in this debate. I hope that the debate will continue on the basis of common agreement, that we

really mean business and that we shall insist that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government shall undertake to report to the Prime Minister and other Ministers that it is the united desire of this House that action shall be taken to deal with this problem.
I am privileged to belong to the people of an area which has suffered more from a polluted atmosphere than any other area in this country. I do not ask the House to accept my view. I refer hon. Members to a report which is in my possession. It contains a very elaborate map showing clearly that the greatest pollution is in the area extending from Manchester to Liverpool and from Liverpool to Stoke-on-Trent. The density of population in that area is greater than it is in any other part of the country. Mountains of wealth have been produced for generations in that area, but scores of people have had their lives needlessly cut short because no action has been taken to deal with this problem of pollution.
I speak with a little emotion, not only because I live in that area, but because I consider myself a lucky man. Today I stand here almost as strong as ever I was, yet six years ago I was on the verge of passing away. Thanks to the very best medical attention and careful nursing and everything that could be done to save life, I no longer suffer as I did then from asthma and bronchitis. But scores of people who are as good as any of us here are tonight lying sleepless in their beds because they have contracted some respiratory disease and have had their difficulties increased because we in this House have not insisted upon action being taken to ensure smoke abatement. I have not had the privilege of visiting America but I understand that one of the blackest spots in the world used to be Pittsburg.

Dr. H. Morgan: So it is, even now.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) said that the air over Pittsburg is now as clear as one would like to see it.
It occurred to me that if the authorities in Pittsburg can ensure that condition, we can do it here. Things are happening in America which are undermining


democracy, but we should give credit where credit is due and it is due to the Americans in this case. I understand that outside Pittsburg there is a great steel producing centre. A few years ago it suffered from a terrible fog which brought disaster and catastrophe of the kind suffered in London just over a year ago. I listened with great interest to The hon. Member for Withington when he gave the House the benefit of his experiences when he drove into London in the great fog. A report has been published on experience outside Pittsburg, and now action is being taken on that report. When are we to take action on this Report?
My former hon. Friends, Joe Batey, Joe Tinker and Bill Bartley, with whom I sat night after night in this House, used to raise the question of the danger of burning coal tips. Those tips are still burning in the Stoke-on-Trent area and many other areas. I am reminded of a great experience my hon. Friends and I had a few weeks ago. In the centre of my division there is a large farm. The farmer's name is Smith and he used to write to me. My daughter, who assists me with my correspondence, got upset because we received so many letters from this man. I worried the different Ministries and kept up the pressure because I thought this man had a case. Then I began to detect that some of the Ministries thought the man was going a bit so-and-so. Nevertheless, I pursued the question because I thought he had a case.
Greatly to my satisfaction and, from an individual point of view, but regrettable from the point of view of the public, the following happened. The Ministry of Agriculture sent an expert team to this farm to investigate the conditions. As a result of their report they took the farm over. The man who was farming there is now in the Isle of Man. He was suitably compensated when the Ministry took over the farm as a research and experimental centre. My hon. Friends and I received a lesson there a few weeks ago. I hope the Minister will convey to the Ministry of Agriculture our great satisfaction about what has happened. We want to place our thanks on record.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It is not quite clear what the Minister of Agriculture has to do with this Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It has this to do with it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are discussing pollution and I was providing concrete evidence of how pollution takes place in this area. It has been the custom in this House for a connected story to be told in order to prove a case. I was proceeding to give the House the benefit of our experience by telling this connected story. The Ministry of Agriculture conducted an inquiry at this research centre. They have a number of very public-spirited scientists doing a fine job there. They deserve all credit for what they have done. My hon. Friends and I were taken round the farm and were able to see the effects of a new process which is beginning to pollute the air of this country to a great extent with serious effects. During the war, a number of new processes were brought out. That was all to the good because it assisted in the prosecution of the war, but those processes are still used and all kinds of pollution is being poured into the air. This raises new problems.
A few weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who was the main mover behind the scenes in this matter, organised a conference in Stoke on the question of air pollution and the effects of dust. A number of doctors spoke at the conference and it had a very fine effect on all who were present. One of the doctors said to me, "You see the canal outside? You would never think of drinking that?" I said, "No." He said "You are breathing that every day.'' That is what is happening in the city of Stoke-on-Trent. Fluorine is being poured into the air. It is deposited on the vegetation of the district and when cattle are grazing they eat grass on which there are fluorine deposits.
We were shown bones and teeth from healthy cattle. Those bones and teeth were strong and good, but we were also shown bones and teeth taken from cattle on this farm and they were brittle like chalk. After an explanation, I saw the terribly cruel effect of fluorine being poured into the air and on to the cattle. If nature has an opportunity of functioning in the ordinary way this has very little effect on life but, as the result of bones being weakened, cattle, when giving birth to calves, suffer a terrible effect. That has been registered on paper, on grass and by diagrams by scientists who are doing noble work at that farm.


If fluorine affects cattle like that, although it may not have the same effect on us, it is bound to have an effect on us within limits.
I ask that action should be taken on the many reports which have been published about what is being produced in the industrial areas. People there are producing goods as they never produced them before. We owe it to them to do all we can to preserve their health. In addition, it would be of fine psychological effect to people in the industrial areas to prevent pollution. If one goes into the country one comes home refreshed and feeling better. That is the effect of country air, and from a business point of view, if for no other reason, we should do what we can to clear the air of industrial areas so that we can get the best from our people and they can lead the lives they deserve to lead.
I am glad to have had the opportunity of making another contribution on this subject. I think of the days when my hon. Friends used to raise the question of burning pit heaps. Scientists say that some of the bad effects of pollution come from those heaps. Surely the time has arrived for the Minister to take action. I am pleased that the debate has been initiated because we have had an opportunity of making our contribution on behalf of the people concerned in this matter.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Walter Elliot: Like other hon. Members, I should like to pay my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) for initiating the debate. But we should not allow it to move off to the general question of atmospheric pollution by fumes because there are Acts on the Statute Book to deal with those things. What is needed there is administration. There are very stringent provisions against the pollution of the atmosphere by means of noxious fumes. What is really wanted for that is the application of the Statutes which are already on the Statute Book.
What we are discussing now is the rather more mystifying problem of the effect of smoke from the domestic fire

and the newly introduced big heating and electricity plants in our great cities. One of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East was the necessity for further knowledge. He referred to the disquieting fact that oil-burning plant, which to many of us seemed to be one of the solutions to the problem, is four times as bad as coal-burning plant because its fuel is four times as rich in sulphur as coal is.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The right hon. Gentleman, who has been Minister of Agriculture, knows that, while what he has said about administration is true, action is not taken. Will he take account of the report of the Committee on Air Pollution which stated that sufficient is already known of the cause, effects and cure of air pollution to enable the broad problem to be appreciated, measured and action taken?

Mr. Elliot: We ought not to mix up tonight the question of heavy pollution by chemical fumes, of which only very few people are guilty, and the general crime, of which we are all guilty, of putting another knob of coal on the fire and letting the smoke go up the chimney, thereby producing the conditions outside which we all deplore.
I feel that we ought to look more closely at the remedies proposed, as well as at the problem, when I learn that the use of the great oil-burning plants is worse for the atmosphere than the use of coal in the domestic grate. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East pointed out that the installation of purification plants in two great power stations in London was, as he contended, actually increasing the injury instead of diminishing it.
It is no use simply saying "Let us take action." Action was taken in the two great power stations in London by installing washing plants. If it is true that the installation of the plants has actually accentuated the difficulty instead of diminishing it, that shows that, in addition to action, we need further research and investigation to make sure that we are going the right way about tackling the problem.
Fog is, of course, no new problem in London. I suppose that one of the finest descriptions of fog ever written was that by Dickens nearly 100 years ago It


makes one gasp even to read the pages of the book. But fog is certainly not confined to London. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. (Mr. Ellis Smith) spoke about the heavy fogs and difficulties of the industrial Midlands. Coming from Clydeside, I know the venom and bitterness of the fogs of that region. The Glasgow fog will challenge comparison with any fog in the world for thickness, smell, taste and acidity. We regard the fogs in London as a mere beneficent kind of cotton wool compared with the vehement onslaught of the results of our industrial fumes upon our lungs.
Yet we must remember that during the last 100 years respiratory diseases have greatly declined. Let us not feel that we are being beaten in this matter. Great advances have been made. The chief advance has been in the case of tuberculosis. Progress is certainly being made, on the whole, and we ought at any rate to be encouraged by that.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Thanks to medical science.

Mr. Elliot: It is true that medical science has done much, but it is also true that the air is, on the whole, cleaner than it was in the days of our youth. One does not get one's collar in such a frightful mess at the end of a long day in London as one did 30 or 40 years ago. Glasgow is still a fairly dirty city and one has to change one's linen more often in the city than in the country. However, it is not as bad as in the days when I went to school there.
We have made advances and we can make further advances, but we want to make sure that the further steps are the best that we can take on scientific lines. Let hon. Members think for a moment of the enormous concentration of motor vehicles in our great cities. Many of us must have felt a little uneasy in a traffic jam, sitting beside a number of exhaust pipes pouring out noxious exhaust fumes. Yet, in spite of that, the substitution of horse traffic by motor traffic has led to a great improvement in the health of our people, and, more particularly, to a great decline in infantile mortality.
When there was horse transport and horse dung was widely spread in the streets of our cities, we got what was

called "the third quarter's rise," the summer and autumn rise in infantile diarrhoea. In those days one got a very marked curve in the infantile mortality of the great cities. That third quarter's rise has now disappeared entirely.
I do not think we can say that the great concentration of motor vehicles is producing the kind of upset in our lung diseases that we should have expected, when we see the great blocks of traffic in the London streets. We see these great canyons between the buildings filled with a mass of vehicles which are burning the air and replacing it with exhaust fumes containing carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. One feels that one ought to come out of it feeling very ill indeed, but on the whole we do not come out of it feeling as ill as we should expect.

Dr. Stross: Has the right hon. Gentleman not noted that in a thickly populated area where there is a great deal of smoke, like the central Middlesex area, the incidence of cancer of the lung and the death rate from it today is three times as high as in the case of tuberculosis in the same area? Therefore, will he not be a little careful about suggesting that the absence of horse dung is the only factor or even a primary factor?

Mr. Elliot: I am speaking about infantile mortality. I am sure that my professional colleague will agree that we practically never get cancer of the lung in infantile mortality, for it is not one of the causes. I was merely saying that the disappearance of the summer illnesses among small children is closely connected with the disappearance of horse-drawn traffic and horse dung, and its substitution by the air-polluting motors. I merely say that that particular cause of illness has very largely disappeared.
Each of us will need to search his own heart and conscience about this question of smoke pollution. If local authorities have not pressed in this direction, it is largely because we have not pressed them. None of us willingly dispenses with a coal or other open fire somewhere about the house. If it must be, then it must be, but we shall all feel the lack of something. Again, I think that research and examination into the production of smokeless fuels of one kind and another, which will still give us open fires as well as the


absence of the pollution of the atmosphere, is something for which we should strive. In our rather muggy, moist climate a small point of intense radiant heat is a very good way of warming oneself.
We do not like those uniform temperatures which commend themselves so much to the Americans, living in their radiator-heated atmosphere, which is uniform all over. There one cannot find any spot near which one wants to sit, and there is no way of getting away from the uniform temperature, because the heating of the house is under thermostatic control. If one opens a window all that happens is that the heating apparatus works harder than ever to keep the temperature up to the point from which one is trying to lower it.
We have special conditions of our own which we like to deal with according to our traditional ways. Therefore, we are asking the Government to do a difficult thing. We are asking them to make a pronouncement by means of which we can get rid of the evils, but still retain the advantages of our traditional systems of heating. I think it should be possible to do that, but it is something that will require a good deal of thought and care, and certainly a good deal of support from us, the rank and file.
After all, we are the people who are creating a great deal of this pollution. We know that quite well. Yet, in spite of it, when I go home I shall probably pick up the poker and give the lump of coal in my fireplace a good hard wallop. I shall see the smoke going up the chimney and shall say, "Thank goodness it is not coming into the room."
The difficulties of the City of London and of the other great cities are certainly very great. We ought to be able to make them much cleaner than they are at present. In particular, we ought to be able to deal with the problem of sulphur dioxide, which is, after all, closely allied to oil of vitriol—one of the most corroding things in the whole chemical range. We are distilling this substance from our fuel and pouring a gentle rain of it all over our buildings and into our lungs. It killed nearly a score of big, strong, cattle a year or two ago at the Smithfield Show. Those cattle were perfectly capable of pushing down a door or knocking

their way nearly through a stone wall, but they could not stand the air at that fatstock show.
We should not, however, be unduly insistent tonight upon the Minister giving us an immediate pledge of action in the matter. We shall have to investigate it a good deal further before we can put into force laws which may mean that the housewife will have to do without her hearth fire. It might well be that that would clean up London, but it would diminish the pleasure which we all have in life, and would lessen in other ways the pleasure of living in a city. In that way we might actually injure the health of people, and to that extent diminish the advantage which we hope to get from action.
Therefore, while I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give us an encouraging reply tonight, and while I agree that the air in our cities ought to be cleaned up, I say again that it will require a great deal more scientific advance before we know exactly the lines along which we ought to go. I think we shall find that the necessities of London, indeed the necessities of Britain, will demand treatment rather different from that which it has, perhaps, been possible to use in Pittsburgh, and other places which have not the same climate as we have here.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I wish to add my word of thanks to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) for raising this subject this evening and to say how profoundly I agree with him that the real source of trouble is the sulphur oxides and not the smoke. We were all appalled some 16 months ago when we learnt that some 4,000 people had died as a result of the fog. But we should remember that a lot of those were people suffering from bronchitis, tuberculosis, and heart disease —lives which needed just that dose of fog' to finish them. I do not think that a similar number would be affected today, and we must not regard a severe fog as something that may happen at any time with similar results.
The hon. Member for Croydon, East said that he had seen very few or no animals dead on the ground during the period of fog. This is strange because sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide are


heavy gases, and they collect near the ground. In the Smithfleld Show it was the fatstock on the ground floor that died or had to be killed. None of the pigs and sheep on the first floor suffered appreciably. Certainly none died or had to be killed.
I live near here in a fifth floor flat. I noticed during the fog period when I went home how much better the atmosphere was on the fifth floor than at street level. I would say to the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) that in my flat I did not poke the coal fire when I got home, because I am sensible enough—I will not say that, but I am fortunate enough not to have to pollute the atmosphere because the flat, though not centrally heated, is heated entirely by gas and electricity. It is in the lower regions of the air that atmospheric pollution is worse.
I maintain that the cause of the trouble is sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide and I think the evidence is conclusive. I do not believe that smoke has very much to do with it; it may have a little but the main trouble is the sulphur oxides. Pittsburg has been quoted, but the atmospheric conditions there are entirely different from London or most of Britain. Sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide in a dry atmosphere influence health very little. It is when they are present in a damp misty atmosphere, as in fogs, that the trouble occurs.
I suggest that the effect of smoke is mainly, if not entirely, that the fine particles of grit and dust form nuclei on which the atmospheric moisture condenses. The result is that where there is smoke there is a finer mist of sulphuric acid and it is that which does the harm. If my contentions are correct then smokeless zones can be of very little value, though they are provided for by the Bill.
There is evidence that in foggy conditions there is nearly as much sulphur oxides in the air in the middle of Hyde Park as around its edges or elsewhere. If we do no more than merely develop smokeless areas we shall not do much because, although people pretend that it is not so, there is as much sulphur oxides given off from coke or smokeless fuel and nearly twice as much from the burning of oil as from coal.
We have got to go much further than these smokeless zones. Indeed, I want to

suggest that it is possible that smokeless zones may even do harm. There is evidence that in cases of fog it is cold as much as smog that is dangerous. People in smokeless areas who do not happen to have coke or smokeless fuel may put out their fires and because of the cold they may suffer more. Obviously the right thing to do in the case of fog is to put out the fire and to turn on an electric heater if one has one. What is required is more research. We may perhaps usefully have smokeless fuels, but do not let us expect too much from them until we know more of the real cause of the trouble, and how it may be prevented.

8.41 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: I have no intention of following the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) to give up breathing, but I must say, after listening to the highly-informed speeches tonight and to the vivid description of the conditions under which we seek to exist, as given by my medical colleagues, that I think we are all extraordinarily lucky to be alive at all.
This has been a most interesting debate, and it has been on a very reserved and balanced note. I hope very much that the Press, in taking note of what has been said, will show a sense of proportion. After the tragedy of a year ago, there was a great deal of nonsense written, and a great deal of unnecessary alarm was caused to all sorts of people who felt that they were suddenly faced with a completely new and uncommon danger. They rushed about seeking fog masks, which we are assured tonight would not be of the slightest value, and shrieking hysterically at the Government or anybody they met to do something about it.
Serious as this problem is, we must get it into a proper perspective. There has been too much use of this absurd word "smog." "Smog" is a comparatively new edition to the American language. I think it was coined to describe a state of affairs in atmospheric pollution of which we have no experience at all in this country, except to a comparatively minor extent a couple of years ago. It arises from conditions which do not obtain anywhere in this country, and certainly not within one million miles of London.
The old English word "fog," which covers everything from a light sea mist which in Scotland passes for bright sunshine, to the London "pea-souper," is a sufficiently adequate word for any ordinary Englishman. We must remember that, in spite of the alleged inaction of everybody in every possible direction, the incidence of fog in this country is far less frequent and far less serious than it used to be. The "pea-souper" which, even in my young days, was a regular institution, is now a rather unusual phenomenon.
One fact certainly emerges from the debate, and it is that there must be more research. From what I have heard tonight, it seems that we are suffering from three troubles—sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and dioxide, and soot. Of those three, the dangerous one, sulphur dioxide, is emitted by coal, by coke and by oil, with oil the worst of them all. If with our present state of knowledge, we are to tackle this problem, there is, therefore, only one way of doing it, and that is to forbid the use of any of these three fuels, which will leave many people very cold. Carbon monoxide can be disposed of entirely only by stopping the automobile industry, which would solve our traffic problems as well. But the fact is that these problems are not within reach of solution until there has been a great deal more technical research.
I feel that it is almost necessary to ask the indulgence of the House if I return for a few moments to the subject of the Motion before us, which is Clause 4 of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill. The Clause provides for the establishment of a smokeless zone within the City boundaries. No one, except the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), has suggested that that might be a retrograde step. It has generally been accepted that at the very worst it must be an improvement and must assist in the solution of the general problem.
There have been some criticisms of the Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) suggested that the City of London was following others like sheep through a hole in the hedge. But the City of London is not the least bit jealous that other local authorities have already obtained powers to create smokeless zones. There is a very good reason why

the City of London should seek these powers at this moment. We are just embarking upon the colossal business of rebuilding very large areas of the City of London. When we are going in for such big building operations, surely that is the most appropriate time to take powers to establish a smokeless zone so that in the new buildings, at least, preparations will be made to prevent the emission of smoke.
My hon. Friend also complained that nothing was said in the Clause about sulphur dioxide. Having heard the many statements tonight that very little is known about sulphur dioxide and how to deal with it, perhaps the City Corporation has shown great prudence in not attempting to deal with it in a Clause of the Bill. But in fact there is a great deal in the Clause about sulphur dioxide. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) told us that the more smoke, the more sulphur dioxide there was. Any measure, therefore, which reduces the volume of smoke automatically reduces the volume of sulphur dioxide.
My hon. Friend also suggested that the City Corporation had been blackmailed by the railways into leaving railway engines out of the Clause. It is a question not of blackmail but of horse-sense. What would be the use of putting into the Bill a Clause which prohibited railway engines from coming into the City of London? We cannot talk such nonsense as that in a Bill which is to be brought before the House. Of course railway engines must come into the City of London, and it is up to the railway authorities to carry out their duty to make those engines emit as little smoke as possible. It is further up to British Railways to get on with the electrification of their railways so that we may be freed from the smoke nuisance in the City.
Comparison with New York is quite pointless. New York railways are all electric. It is true that many longdistance trains have to change their engines outside New York and haul the trains in by electric power, but it is not conceivable that within reasonable time we can effect such fundamental changes in London as that. Therefore, for the time being we must be reasonable and sensible about the railways.
Another complaint was that to create a smokeless zone in the City of London would not be of great benefit because of the prevailing wind, and it was suggested that the proper area to create it was in Fulham, Westminster and Chelsea. If that is so, let those authorities go ahead and get the powers, but let us not use that as an argument for objecting to the City of London obtaining and exercising powers of this kind within its own area. They cannot do any harm; they must do some good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Sir A. Bossom) complained that there was nothing in this Bill about promoting intensive research and experiment. Surely anything of that kind would be hopelessly inappropriate in a Bill promoted by a local authority. It has nothing to do with it. The local authority has recognised the need for research, but it is not for it to take powers to provide it. That is surely a matter either for the Government or for other appropriate authorities.
I want to say a word about the Instruction to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has appended his name. He asks that the Committee should include in the Bill a statutory provision whereby the City Corporation should publish annually statistics with regard to air pollution. I hope he will not press that, because for many years before 1941, when the apparatus used was destroyed by bombing, the City kept regular—not annual, but monthly, weekly and I think even daily—checks of the pollution in the City area. In 1948 it was able to re-establish its observation and testing station, and that information is currently obtained and is always available. From time to time, any significant figures are published in learned society journals and appropriate places of that kind.
The information is always available to anyone who is sufficiently informed to understand it and sufficiently interested to seek it. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not ask the Committee to burden the Corporation with yet another demand for a regular return which, in my submission, can serve no purpose, and the whole point of which can be met in existing conditions without any fresh machinery or fresh requirements.
This long debate has ranged a long way beyond the City of London and a long way even beyond the question of smokeless zones. All that the City of London ask is that it should be given powers to make a beginning. It does not believe for a moment that what it is doing is in any sense a solution of the problem of fog or air pollution. What the Corporation believe, as practical men, is that this is a contribution towards such a solution. I hope that the House will agree that this Bill should go to the Committee unhampered by any Instruction as to the way in which it should deal with it.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I think we are indebted to the City of London for enabling us to discuss this matter tonight—and at not too great length, I think—because, as has become quite apparent, it is a 'matter about which many people are deeply concerned. It is right that this opportunity should be taken to discuss it fairly fully. I hope the opportunity will be taken by the Government to express their views about the future. Many local authorities are considering this matter.
Many local authorities have prepared their Private Bills. Many of them have gone to a great deal of trouble to prepare zones they may designate as smokeless zones. They are all anxious to know what the views of the Government are on the matter. The proposals of some local authorities, I believe, have been turned down by the Minister, for reasons which I do not know and that may be perfectly valid. However, there is a great deal of doubt in the minds of local authorities generally about what they ought to do.
Now that we have had some little experience of their value, I think proposals of this sort should be taken up by the Government, thus making it unnecessary for the local authorities to present Private Bills, because if these powers are desirable for London and Manchester and other towns that have taken them it is probably desirable that local authorities generally should have them. We should like to hear what advice the Parliamentary Secretary can give us about that.
I know very well the difficulties. In the not so long distant past I myself occupied a post similar to that which the Parliamentary Secretary now occupies. I know the difficulties the Ministry at that time had to face, when we were being asked our opinions about these matters, and when various voluntary organisations that have the support of the Ministry were pressing the desirability of smokeless zones and of purifying the atmosphere. In those days there was the problem of the lack of suitable fuel and the problem of the lack of suitable appliances that could be made readily available. We had not had the experience then. We have a great deal more experience now.
We have had some conflicting evidence about the effect of smoke upon health, and whether smoke includes the more noxious particles or not. Whatever may be true about that, there can be no doubt about the damage, the general hardship and the difficulties caused by smoke. Therefore, there can be no doubt about the desirability of getting rid of it. Whatever further steps need to be taken about gases, and so on, which may do the most serious damage, and whatever may be the rights and the wrongs of the case argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), we certainly do need to tackle the problem of smoke.
We have been agreed tonight that we do need a great deal more research, and if the debate has done nothing else it has certainly made clear the need for the Government to give all possible support to further research. That ought not to hold us back from giving approval to the proposals put forward by the City of London, or hold us back from asking the Government whether the time has not arrived when they should themselves suggest proposals for giving these permissive powers to local authorities. I think it is very hard on local authorities that they have to go through this very expensive procedure in order to get something which is generally regarded today as reasonable and proper.
There has been a good deal of discussion this afternoon about the size of the area which ought to be involved. I think that, on the whole, the evidence of Manchester suggests that even a relatively small area can do some good. Perhaps I may put it this way. Probably the

greatest good that it can do is to encourage a steady widening of the area. What I think is true of Manchester is that the very fact that certain measures have been taken in a rather narrow area in the centre of Manchester has made us all the more conscious of the trouble that remains, and, therefore, those that are in the area where they have been obliged to take measures—expensive measures some of them—in order to clean up their own area, are, of course, in the front line of the campaign to extend the area.

Sir H. Williams: A non-domestic area is easier than a domestic area.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Whatever the area, I think that it is good because, although we can make only a limited attack at the beginning, we get the good will and support, as Manchester has shown, from those who are immediately affected for the steady expansion of the area. That seems to be the experience of Manchester and, therefore, it seems to me that we should not necessarily accept the point put in the Report. There it seems to be suggested that unless we have a very wide area indeed, it is perhaps not worth while going forward. I do not think that is so. Even though the results may be limited, it is well worth getting them.
I know that this has been discussed very much in the area, which I know best, of Tyneside. If we start tackling this matter in Newcastle on our own, as I hope we shall do, we shall not get the full benefit unless we can extend it gradually throughout the whole Tyneside area, because we are all offenders throughout Tyneside. Nevertheless, I think that we should be ready to start, even on a limited field.
I am sure that we all agree that this is of fundamental importance and that the Government should now give increased support to research into these problems. It is all too clear how much we all need to know. I also hope that the Minister —and understanding all the difficulties he still has to face—will be able to say that the Government are at least considering the possibility of giving more general advice to local authorities about smokeless zones, as I think that is a practical first step forward. I hope that when we give our support to this Bill, as I am sure we shall today, we shall, at the same time, feel that we are taking a valuable step


forward in this whole matter, and we certainly congratulate the hon. Baronet on introducing it. I never expected lo be in the position of congratulating him, but that just shows what unlikely things do happen. I congratulate him on initiating this debate, as others have done, and I certainly hope that it will produce valuable results.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) made a valuable contribution when he referred to the disastrous fog we had last year, but I think that can be applied out of its context and unduly exaggerated. As he rightly said, although there was a very serious loss of life during that fog, the people concerned were mainly those who were in a very bad state of health already. Although that in no way mitigates the feelings of those connected with them, it is a relevant consideration here.
Having said that, I want to join issue with the hon. Member for Barking on the rest of his speech. This is a matter in which we ought now to go ahead and in which the Government ought to encourage local authorities to go ahead. There has been a great deal of talk about the need for more research. With respect to hon. Members who have expressed that opinion, I suggest that most of the facts about the matter are common knowledge and that we should not be put off and have our purpose deflected by a lot of talk about the need for further research.
What are the basic considerations? The trouble is caused by carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and what is called soot or smoke in its general sense. This is not really so complicated a matter. There are two almost exclusive sources of sulphur dioxide. It mainly comes from smoke, and in so far as it does not come from smoke out of chimneys, it comes from the exhaust fumes of vehicles.
Therefore, when we strike at smoke, we are also striking at the main source of sulphur dioxide, and if we follow that up with some other kind of measure directed against the discharge of exhaust gases in city areas, we shall be striking at the only two significant sources of sulphur dioxide in city air. Therefore, it is not so complicated a matter. The

same is true of carbon monoxide. Thus, as a first step, the problem is how to control smoke emission.
The hon. Member for Barking suggested that smoke, as distinct from sulphur dioxide, did not really matter. I think he is wrong. I will tell him why. I do not think he is right in saying that the significant factor is gritty nuclei of condensation. I assume that he is referring to water vapour and not sulphur dioxide, because sulphur dioxide is present as a gas in these dangerous fogs. I take his argument to be that water fog is more likely to occur if there are gritty nuclei of condensation present on which the water vapour can condense.
I do not think that is true. I do not think it is true anywhere in the atmosphere under a height of about 20,000 feet, and I believe that that would be generally agreed. One gets excessive super-saturation of the atmosphere with water vapour above about 20,000 feet because there one has not got sufficient nuclei of condensation. Anywhere below that very high level there are always ample nuclei of condensation.
The distinctive factor which makes city fogs is hygroscopic nuclei of condensation which lead a fog to be formed in a bad city area, even where the relative humidity is perhaps only 95 per cent., by the progressive enlargement of hygroscopic nuclei, as I am sure the hon. Member for Barking will agree.
Therefore, what we are really concerned with as regards the frequency of fogs is to have as few hygroscopic nuclei as we possibly can, and inasmuch as nearly all of these come from smoke and exhaust discharge, we are back right where we started in the matter.
Therefore, I say to the hon. Member and to the Government that there really is a single problem here, and that is the discharge of smoke from chimneys and then, as a subsidiary point, the discharge of exhaust gases from internal combustion engines. If we can solve those two problems we shall not have either (a) an unusual frequency of any kind of fog in a city area, or (b)a form of pollution of fog which is dangerous to health.
The right course for the Government is to tell local authorities that the main lines of action are already understood, and are clear and simple, and all that is


needed is that they should press on with this problem, which has been neglected and put aside for too long. It is one fully capable of solution by determined and persistent action, and I am delighted to see the City of London taking rather belated but none the less welcome action. I hope that the House will speed this Bill on its way tonight, and that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the Government are fully behind it. We want to press on at full speed and see that no more time is lost on further research or anything else.

Mr. Hastings: Will the hon. Member say whether he agrees that smoke without sulphur dioxide presents very little danger, whereas sulphur dioxide without smoke, and in the presence of moisture, is a very great danger?

Mr. Bell: I had intended to deal with that point, but I wanted to be as short as possible. The relevance of it is that once a fog forms there is a stable layer of atmosphere in which the sulphur dioxide is trapped. If the fog does not form, although we may have a stable layer in the morning by radiational cooling of the ground, the sun very soon breaks through and we get rid of the dangerous layer of sulphur dioxide. It is the fog which conserves the dangerous layer of vapour, and that is why the prevention of the formation of fogs has a direct bearing on the concentration of sulphur dioxide.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: I am not going to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) because I did not understand it, and I had the utmost difficulty in gathering what it was all about. I want to talk about something much nearer the earth, and the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply gives me a real opportunity. Nobody has any doubt that some action should be taken by the Ministry as soon as possible on this very important matter which has caused us all so much concern.
The hon. Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) referred to the fact that Manchester was an example to the rest of the country, but if he will refer to the leading article in today's "Manchester Guardian" he will find that the first city referred to as being a pioneer in this idea

is Salford. Manchester is in close proximity, and because of that there is an old saying, which is well known, that what Manchester thinks today England thinks, tomorrow—and, in fact, Salford thought yesterday. It was in advance of Manchester in this respect.
I could paint a picture and go into lurid details, just as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), about the conditions in my constituency. Salford has got down to this question and has decided to make three smokeless zones. It had permissive powers, and had everything prepared to go on with the scheme in the areas of Lower Kersal, Weaste and Duchy Road. When it had its plans ready the Ministry set up an inquiry into the city's decision and, as a result, the town clerk of Salford received a letter from the Ministry on 26th May, 1952. The letter said:
Sir, Salford…Smokeless Zones Order, 1951. I am directed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to refer to your letter of 5th February, 1951, applying for confirmation of the Salford…Smokeless Zones Order, 1951, and to say that, having considered his Inspector's report on the Inquiry held on 2nd October, 1951, and after consultation with the Minister of Fuel and Power on the question of supplies of smokeless fuels, he has decided that he would not be justified in confirming the Order at the present time. I am to say that in reaching this decision the Minister has had particularly in mind information from the Minister of Fuel and Power that adequate supplies of smokeless fuels are not likely to be available and the fact that the extensive conversion of existing grates which would be necessary would consume more steel than can be spared at present.
Yet all the evidence before the inquiry mentioned in this letter from the local officers of the Ministry of Fuel and Power showed that smokeless fuel was available, and also, at the same time, people in the Ministry of Supply regional office were able to say that it was possible to provide the necessary steel for the conversion. In spite of that, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government turned down the scheme. Of course the letter was not signed by the Minister, but it says that this was the decision of the Minister and I am sure that he would not desire to shelter behind the fact that he had not signed the letter.
Tonight we have been speaking of the great need for this experiment to be started in the City of London, yet only as recently as 1952 the city which I have


the honour to represent was refused permission to go on with a scheme for which it actually possessed the necessary powers. Therefore, I am glad to precede the Parliamentary Secretary, and if the hon. Gentleman says that the Ministry is in agreement with what has been said in the debate, I hope he will say that Salford can get on with its scheme at the earliest possible moment. Because of that, I support everything that has been said, and I submit that in this instance the city of Salford must have preference over the City of London.

9.18 p.m.

Dr. H. Morgan: I am glad to get in at the last moment on a subject in which I have long been interested, not only from the sociological point of view, but also from the medical point of view, having served in a sanatorium and in a tubercular dispensary dealing with this sinister and deadly disease. If it can be arrested before it has reached a certain stage, many lives can be saved, but when there are huge cavities in the lungs nothing that can be done from the point of view of medical treatment, food or inoculation will save the patient and give him a normal life.
I shall content myself with three brief quotations. A great deal has been talked about the different substances in the atmosphere, one of which is sulphur dioxide. I shall read a quotation from a Government publication, the last interim Report issued on this subject.
Sulphur dioxide is generally regarded as the most serious of the gaseous pollutants because of its harmful effects on structures, metals and other materials, on agriculture and, in all probability, cm health. In winter, even in the absence of fog, the concentration of sulphur dioxide in the air of towns near ground level may be 17 to 35 parts per 100 million volumes of air; the normal summer concentrations are very much lower.
We have opportunities in this country even in our climate and even in the concentration of large cities to do something to tackle this problem.
I am speaking on behalf of the city of Warrington, in which tuberculosis is a very dangerous disease. Many of my constituents fall victims to the disease and die of it whereas, if their cases could be properly handled, they could be saved. Given a free hand, I could prevent 50 per cent, of the deaths from tuberculosis in my constituency, provided that I was

allowed to prepare the ground during the first three years of the onset of the disease. Every year I have watched rising statistics relating to a situation which I know is avoidable. The poorer people in my constituency, as a result of the layout of the city as much as the lack of proper food and treatment, are doomed to an early death which I know to be avoidable.
Another recent official document states:
The areas most susceptible to severe ' smog' are therefore those which experience a high frequency of fog and in which urban and industrial density produce large amounts of pollution…Within these areas are the black spots in which the gravest conditions recur and where the evils of air pollution are most pronounced and most persistent. It is here that the need for amelioration is most urgent.
Granted good food and good surrounding conditions and the opportunity of breathing God's free air now and again and not even necessarily all the year round, many of these victims of tuberculosis would recover. I do not know why some hon. Members appear to be laughing, because "God's free air" is a term which is used by doctors quite frequently. In any event, if experts on tuberculosis had their way, within 10 years they could reduce the incidence of tuberculosis in this country by 75 per cent. I deeply regret that there is so little time today to speak on a subject of this kind. We have sick disabled individuals fighting for breath as a result of a disease which doctors know is preventable but which threatens their lives because their own fellow men have failed to provide the proper living conditions that would have enabled them to be saved.
I ask that there should be a hundredfold attempt to increase the campaign for the treatment of tuberculosis in this country in every way—treatment by food, by good living, by medicines and good surrounding conditions, but above all by good living conditions and housing. If that were done, with what pride would we look back in 10 or 15 years. The doctors would be proud of their work and the citizens of different towns would be proud of their work. Money would have to be spent, but wonders could be worked in dealing with a preventable disease like tuberculosis.
I have seen babies born of tubercular mothers and fathers and my opinion has been asked. I have said, "In 10 years that child will have tuberculosis and in 15 years it will be beyond hope." As a medical man I have had close contact, sometimes for a series of years, in fighting this deadly disease which, once it gets a grip, never lets go. Stop it before it gets a thorough grip and the susceptible person can be saved, otherwise the road is straight on to a death which cannot be avoided and nothing in the world can help. I only hope that the combating of this disease will receive the favourable consideration of this House, if not now, on some subsequent occasion.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: This is the first occasion on which I have heard the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) make what one could call a full-length speech, and I should like to congratulate him. I have heard him make many interjections and I feel that if he would concentrate on speeches instead of interjections, he would be helpful to the House and to the country. He was right to emphasise the horror with which we all view the growth of tuberculosis. He was right to emphasise that the discussion, which has gone on since 7 p.m., concerns a means designed to bring it to an absolute minimum. I should like to feel that, as a result of this short discussion, we shall get from the Government, certainly in the matter of air pollution, the means of bringing about that desired result.
I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary will have to pay some attention to what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle). My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), in opening the discussion, made a very telling point that 17 local authorities had obtained powers to establish smokeless zones, but that only two of those authorities—Manchester and Coventry—had made any effort to give effect to those powers. I feel that the House and the country ought to know whether the experience of Salford has been that of other parts of the country. Salford has the powers and the will to give effect to those powers, but in some way or another, possibly because of some technicality of the Ministry itself, it has

been frustrated when trying to do so. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us about this. If it is not so, one would like, in a friendly way, to criticise the authorities which have the powers and have not made effective use of them. If it is not their fault but the fact that the requisite permission has not been forthcoming from the Ministry, we must direct our fire at the Ministry.
If the Parliamentary Secretary can tell the House and the country that it is the policy of the Department to encourage local authorities to take these powers and, when they have done so, to give all the help the Ministry can to give effect to those powers, the debate will have been well worth while. If we can get that assurance, it will mean that a debate which has gone on for about three hours will have done very much more good than the debate last night which went on until about six o'clock in the morning, and it will show how great good can come out of little things.
The other message that we can send out from the debate is to ask people to help themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East pointed out very vividly how we can all help in our individual capacities, even in such a humble way as resisting lighting our bonfires in our gardens when fog is in the air. His appeal to whoever is responsible for the cleaning up of our London parks was a very good one, and I hope that the Minister will take his words to heart.
I felt that my hon. Friend's reference to the efficiency of stoking in the power stations was one which ought to be borne in mind by the people who are responsible. If stoking is efficient and regular, one gets a draught running through the furnace which will burn the particles instead of their being left half burnt to go into the atmosphere to the detriment of the general public.
We ought not to forget the figures quoted by my hon. Friend. It is a fact that in December, 1952, in about five days smog led to the death of about 4,000 people. In six years of war, with all the mechanical contrivances that Hitler's Germany could produce, it took six years to bring about 40,000 deaths.
From the point of view of really helping in this very necessary drive to minimise the dreaded disease of tuberculosis,


nothing has a higher priority than the topic which we are discussing. Nothing has a higher priority, if one is looking to the health of the country, than ensuring that the poisons and the particles of dirt which cause disease are eradicated from the atmosphere, if that is at all possible.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We are all in agreement on that. The question which arises is when we are to act.

Mr. Nicholls: I am joining the hon. Member in adding my voice to ensure that the Government give a lead. Instead of waiting for other Bills to give powers to certain parts of the country, the Government should obtain powers to cover the whole of the country, with the object of ridding the atmosphere of the dreaded pollution.

9.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): We have had a very long and interesting debate on what has proved to be a most absorbing topic. When he was congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that very unlikely things happen in this House. Something very unlikely has happened to me tonight. It has been a unique experience. As Parliamentary Secretary, I have never listened to a debate in which there has been such unanimity and—I will not say lack of hostility—such a small number of points directed at the Ministry. It has been a very great occasion for me. Everything has been very harmonious. I can only hope that this sort of thing will be repeated, but my own inclination is to think that that is rather unlikely.
Anyone who has listened to the debate must have been impressed by the sincerity and ability of some of the contributions which have been made from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East is to be congratulated. He is shrewd and experienced, and I would almost call him a wily politician. He has found a device which he has properly used tonight to enable us to discuss air pollution. How he finds his way through the labyrinths of the procedural orders of the House is something which baffles me.
We have had a very wide debate, and I shall not be able to answer some of the varied points which have been raised regarding the effect of the various constituents in the air on the incidence of tuberculosis, because I am not qualified to give a technical dissertation on those points. We have also had a good contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) who has had great architectural experience both in the New World and in the Old World, and who has a great deal of knowledge of the conditions in Pittsburgh and New York. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for his scientific discourse, buttressed by his medical training on this issue.
We are discussing tonight the narrow issue of this City of London Bill, but that issue has been widened into a debate on air pollution generally. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) described this narrow issue as being solely one of whether or not there shall be a smokeless zone in the City of London. On that point, I think that the whole House is agreed that there should be such a zone, and I have no hesitation in saying that the Government hope that this Bill will go through. We would like to congratulate the City of London on bringing it forward, and I take it that as a matter of course my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East will be withdrawing his Instruction later on.

Mr. Royle: Does it mean that, because the Government give this Bill their blessing, Salford will get its Bill?

Mr. Marples: I shall be dealing with Salford a little later on. I dare not omit Salford, because I was born not far from that great city.
Words are very imprecise, and the Press have used the word "smog." I am not quite sure what it means. It has been used in a sense which I do not think is doing any good in dealing with the problem of air pollution. As far as I understand it, smog is visible smoke in atmospheric conditions of fog. But here we are discussing two issues, the narrower one of which is a smokeless zone in the City of London which can make a limited, but very useful contribution towards overcoming the problem of air pollution generally.
The smokeless zone is a narrow section of a much wider problem. The "Manchester Guardian" have said that it is time that the Government made some pronouncement about their policy and their intentions. The Government are determined to do all in their power to conquer the evil of air pollution, and it is obvious that they will have to do so in a crowded island with 50 million inhabitants and with large numbers of people living in what are called conurbations, the intense living conditions which we all know so well in the Black Country and Manchester.
It is necessary that the Government should do everything in their power to make absolutely certain that a method is discovered of ensuring that the air we breathe is pure, fresh and wholesome. This is no lukewarm intention. I want to make that quite plain. The Government are enthusiastic about this matter, as I will try to show during the course of my remarks.
Tackling a problem of this nature is exactly the same as tackling a medical problem. First there must be a diagnosis of what is wrong and then action must be taken to put it right. The diagnosis must be thorough and accurate and the action must be undertaken with determination, energy and imagination. There has been some debate today regarding what is the diagnosis. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), and it was quite clear that we are not all wholly in agreement on some of the technical causes of air pollution. Therefore, the first thing must be to analyse air pollution and then to get rid of the undesirable elements in the air when we find out what they are.
On the wider issue of air pollution, the Government have set up the Beaver Committee which has already made an interim report. On the Committee are a number of distinguished and learned scientists who are devoting themselves to this problem. I think we ought to thank them. The Committee's terms of reference are:
To examine the nature, causes and effects of air pollution and the efficacy of present preventive measures; to consider what further preventive measures are practicable; and to make recommendations.

The Beaver Committee can therefore go into the whole wide field of air pollution and not merely the narrow issue of smokeless zones. It has done that because, in the first report it says that air pollution:
… includes not only smoke, gases, dust and grit from chimneys, smoke from locomotives and ships, exhaust gases from internal combustion engines, but also the fumes, gases and products of chemical works and industrial processes, and airborne dust from other sources.
It is not only the visible constituents of air pollution but the other invisible gases in the air which must be analysed before we take remedial measures.
After listening to this sincere debate tonight, it is my intention to send a copy of our proceedings to the Beaver Committee and to ask it to investigate the suggestions made by hon. Members on all sides of the House. The suggestions will be analysed and, if not practicable, will I hope be shown as such. At any rate they will be investigated. If any other hon. Member has suggestions and sends them to me I will forward them to the Committee. Here it would be desirable if it went from this House how grateful we are to Sir Hugh Beaver and his Committee for undertaking this rather difficult task. It looks like being much lengthier and more comprehensive than we thought when the Committee was set up.
In opening this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East said that he had a little scientific knowledge earlier in life. From the quality of his contribution I judged that very little of that scientific knowledge had departed from him during the years he has been in the House. Some of his suggestions were most interesting. I will not follow up all of them—such as his criticism of the way in which the Royal Fine Arts Commission build chimneys—but I will certainly pass on with great emphasis what he said about sulphur dioxide. He is quite right when he said that, scientifically, we do not know sufficient of the problem. If the Beaver Committee recommends that there should be more scientific research I can assure the House that the Government will take notice of such a recommendation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Beaver Committee, within reason, to expedite its report?

Mr. Marples: Yes, but if it is to be a thorough report we must give the Committee time to investigate it thoroughly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove pointed out, when diagnosing what is wrong one must be sure that the diagnosis is correct. For instance, we have already taken remedial action by installing washing plants in power stations which, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East, have proved wholly ineffective. If action precedes diagnosis it will almost certainly end in lamentable failure. But, whatever the Beaver Committee does, we should urge that its recommendations should be carefully considered and be as accurate as possible within the shortest possible time. I would not like it to be pressed by a time limit at the risk of it making incorrect recommendations.
The narrow issue of a smokeless zone for London is a limited but useful part of the attack on air pollution. But it must not distract us from other remedies. The Government for their part—and this is the policy which the "Manchester Guardian" wants us to announce—welcome this. But it must be proceeded with carefully, because it is no good having such a rapid expansion that the Ministry of Fuel could not provide sufficient of the necessary smokeless fuel. It ought to be a carefully planned expansion so that the installation of smokeless zones keep pace with the appliances available and the smokeless fuel which can be used in them.
The Government are keen on that. They would greatly welcome it, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power—I had a long chat on this subject with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon —would welcome it for this reason. It has larger quantities of smokeless fuel than it has had for a long time. The reason for that is that new oil refineries have given this country larger quantities of oil, which are being used for industrial purposes. That in turn is releasing coke, which is now freely available for our homes, so that the Ministry of Fuel and Power believes it is in its interests to stimulate production as well as the consumption of smokeless fuel.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) said that in 1952 it was stated there was hardly any smokeless fuel and no steel, and he referred to a letter written about that. That letter was

written almost two years ago. This Government came into power in 1951, and the letter was written in May, 1952. At that time we were short of steel and we did not have the smokeless fuel. Now we have sufficient steel and smokeless fuel. It is a different kettle of fish.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Is there sufficient fuel?

Mr. Marples: Yes.

Mr. Pargiter: And does the hon. Gentleman classify coke as a smokeless fuel for this purpose?

Mr. Marples: I should like to answer some of the points made earlier by hon. Members. I do not want to talk the Bill out, so if I do not give way to hon. Members, I hope they will understand.
I was asked whether the Government were really serious on this issue of having smokeless zones. All I can say is that on 11th February we had a meeting on this very point with a certain number of local authorities, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East is that we had to await the outcome of that meeting and subsequent meetings to see if we could get agreement with the local authorities. We have to decide whether it would be better to give guidance, but apart from that the initiative has been taken. A meeting has already been held and we think that some good will flow from it.
There is the difficulty about getting people in the country to adopt these modern fuel-saving appliances in which smokeless fuel is used. The first difficulty, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove said, is we all like an open fire. In this respect there is no more conservative body of opinion than the miners. They get a free issue of coal and it is very difficult to get miners to use coke instead of coal.

Mr. Joseph Slater: rose—

Mr. Marples: No, I cannot give way.

Mr. Slater: On a point of order. The Minister has made a statement which is incorrect, and I want to give him this assurance—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Slater: Well, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

Mr. Maiples: rose—

Mr. Slater: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has not disclosed any point of order.

Mr. Slater: On a point of correction.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to raise a point of correction.

Mr. Marples: I am sorry, but I did not mean my remarks in any offensive way.

Mr. Slater: I know that.

Mr, Marples: It is well known that the miners receive a free issue of coal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it is part of their wages, and I know in one of the new towns—

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: rose—

Mr. Marples: No, I cannot give way, but I think in the interests of peace and this Bill I had better depart from the point, though I should like to assure the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) that I did not mean it in any offensive way whatsoever.
The second thing we must remember is that people are reluctant to pay for these appliances. My hon. Friend said they were using electric and gas cookers, but unfortunately they are using fires as well because 12 million houses in this country have open fireplaces, and that is too many if we are to have a smokeless atmosphere.
As the "Manchester Guardian" points out this morning, the price of smokeless fuel is also a deterrent, because it is fairly high. The difficulty is that if the gas company brings the price of coke down, it has to increase the price of gas, which is not a very popular measure. However, I will forward to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel anl Power the observations of the hon. Member who telephoned the North Thames Gas Board.
The Government want to see the installation of these grates in the old houses and to make sure that we have a steady supply of smokeless fuel to fill those grates. The House might be interested to know some of the proposals which we have in mind to encourage people to

buy fuel-saving appliances. My right hon. Friend had a great deal of success in persuading people to accept the People's house, and he did that by having demonstrations throughout the country so that everyone could see the house in three dimensions and assess what it would be like to live in one.
We propose to do exactly the same with improvements and conversions. A Bill dealing with this subject it now in Standing Committee, and when it is on the Statute Book, or even before, we propose to hold demonstrations in as many local authority areas as possible, where we can persuade the authority to agree. We propose to have two or three improvements and conversions in the centre of their cities, and to leave the houses open to the public for two or three months. In the improvements and conversions we shall include fuel-saving appliances and we shall show how much it will cost in rent per week to have one of those appliances fitted.
I have seen that procedure carried out on quite an elaborate scale at Southwark by the London County Council. The L.C.C. has persuaded quite a number of tenants on the 56 acres of property which it bought from the Church Commissioners to instal fuel-saving appliances which burn smokeless fuel. If we can show a housewife a fire in the kitchen with a good back boiler from which she can draw hot water, and that the cost will be only 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week extra in rent, then I should have thought the housewife would want that sort of fire. At present she has to boil a kettle on the gas stove to get hot water.
By that sort of measure we hope to take immediate action and to do what we can to carry public opinion with us. It will not be easy. I hope hon. Members in their constituencies will do all they can to persuade people to adopt this type of appliance, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove said, it is not very easy to persuade some people because there is not the bright, attractive focal point in the decoration of the room when there is no open fire. I will pass to the Minister of Fuel my right hon. Friend's suggestion that there should be a smokeless fuel-saving appliance which at the same time looks attractive from the point of view of the decoration and homeliness of the room.
I commend the Bill to the House and hope that it may proceed upstairs. I hope the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will not press his Instruction. I gather he does not intend to do so and I am grateful to him. I am sorry that I have not been able to answer many points which have been raised but I can assure the House that the Government mean to do what they can to take the people and local authorities with them, persuading them that it is essential for the smokeless zones that we should have this type of appliance installed in our houses. I hope the House will send (he Bill upstairs without a Division.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Herbert Williams.

Sir H. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I know that I have exhausted my right to speak, but perhaps with your leave and that of the House I might make one observation.

Mr. Slater: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely other hon. Members who have not spoken should be given an opportunity to contribute to the debate if they desire?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member whom I called is the hon. Member who moved the Instruction. I called him for the purpose of ascertaining what course he intended to follow.

Sir H. Williams: If I may say so, I think this debate has served a valuable purpose. I think it was of a very high standard, and I am grateful to hon. Members on both ides of the House who have contributed to it. This is a problem of great complexity. None of us knows the real answer, and I think the ventilation which has been given to this matter ought to produce valuable public reaction. I feel, therefore, that I have been justified in the course that I took. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) does not wish to move his Motion?

Dr. Stross: I propose not to move it, Mr. Speaker, since I never intended to press it.

LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS (VALIDATION) BILL [Lords]

Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," resumed.

Question again proposed.

9.57 p.m.

Mrs. White: As I was saying before the intervening business began, I am not objecting to the Bill which the Attorney-General is asking the House to accept, so far as it goes. My objection to the Bill is that it does not go anything like far enough. The Attorney-General knows from his study of the Nathan Report, about which he made some complimentary remarks, that although that Committee regarded the matter contained in this Bill as one of some urgency and importance, nevertheless there are other matters which it considered to be at least of equal urgency, and I should say of much greater importance.
This Bill deals with only one of the 17 chapters in this Report, namely Chapter 12; but, as the Attorney-General is aware, the Nathan Committee stated quite categorically that there was one outstanding problem calling for reform, namely the question of the cy pres doctrine. I am not a lawyer and, therefore, I would not presume to deal with the narrow legal aspects of the matter concerning charitable trusts, but, as I said, I have had some slight personal experience of dealing with charitable trusts and I do not see why on an occasion of this sort a lay person should not be entitled to draw attention to the social aspects of the matter, because the Bill with which we are concerned and which the Government have brought forward as a solution of the problem is a legalistic Measure. It is, no doubt, a necessary one, but it does not pretend to deal with any of the social aspects of the law concerning charitable trusts.
I suggest that the Government should now seriously consider bringing forward, first of all presumably, the White Paper which was mentioned by the Lord Chancellor in another place and, without too much delay, bringing forward legislation to deal with the major point in the Nathan Report, namely, the cy pres doctrine and the provision whereby trusts could be altered when it was clearly in


the public interest that they should be. There is provision for educational trusts but not for other charitable trusts to be altered to meet present day circumstances.
There is one other important recommendation in the report which I believe should be most urgently considered by the Government, and that is the position of the Charity Commissioners and the need for more adequate representation in this House. With all respect to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) and his predecessors on either side of the House, I must say that the method of representation here does not satisfy either the legislative or the administrative needs.
The Charity Commission, as the Report makes very clear, is utterly inadequately staffed. My own brief experience of this work has taught me that a small charitable trust can continue for 25 years without ever being asked to submit its accounts, without ever being required to have them audited. The capital is in the hands of the Charity Commissioners, but the interest, by collusion amongst the trustees, could be misappropriated for 25 years without anybody being any the wiser.
In the case of one such trust, we have never been asked to submit to any sort of scrutiny or check. It was only when I read this report that I realised that we were under some obligation to submit accounts. We have had no communication from the Charity Commissioners telling us so. I propose at the next annual meeting to suggest we send the accounts to the Charity Commissioners as an act of courtesy, but even if we do nobody is likely to take the slightest notice of them, because the Commission is inadequately staffed.
This is not a small matter. The number of trusts is not accurately known, but it is certainly tens of thousands, and those trusts are administering sums running into many millions of pounds. There has been no major legislation since 1869. That in itself is reasonable ground for suggesting that there should be some Ministerial responsibility. The Attorney-General is required to take charge of the Bill today, but he has no general responsibility for the administration of charitable trusts or

for any legislative reform required. While one cannot quarrel with the Bill, it is not satisfactory that neither the Attorney-General nor the Lord Chancellor has been able to give any positive assurance that the Government intend to do something about the other major matters mentioned in the report. It would not have been right to have allowed this Bill to pass without some voice having been raised in favour of more adequate Measures being brought forward.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Higgs: I sympathise to some extent with the desire for tidiness of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), but we must remember that we are dealing with arrangements under which a private individual disposes of his own money or other property and appoints trustees of his own choosing to look after that disposal, providing his own money, and telling them what to do, and I do not see why we should add to the burdens of Ministers by seeking to compel them to interfere with private arrangements of that sort, any more than they are interfered with at present.
However, I want to talk about a small matter mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) when I was, unfortunately, absent from the House on another duty. It is a question of the trustees who, after the 1949 cases, to which reference has been made, and which brought to light the difficulties that have led to the introduction of this Bill, took steps of their own accord to try to remedy their position.
First there were those who went to the courts. In some cases proceedings were instituted by the trustees for no other purpose than to make clear that their position was a sound one. I am told that a number of actions were started in that way for no other purpose than that of maintaining, not upsetting, the trust. There is some uncertainty as to what the position will be under Clause 4. That Clause, as I understand it, contemplates cases in which proceedings have been instituted to upset the trust. Possibly the revenue authorities wish to say that the trust is invalid. That is provided for in the Bill one way or the other.
The other sort of proceedings are entirely different, proceedings in which the trustees very commendably wished to help themselves—rather than wait for Parliament to help them—to put this right by initiating proceedings. This is a Committee point of detail, but I think that it is worth mentioning on the Second Reading that we ought to have regard to the effect of the Bill upon actions of that sort, whether they are actions begun and brought to a conclusion or actions started but which, when the report and the announcement of the Government's intention were made, were stayed, and the proceedings rest where they then happened to be.
The other class of case, of which several have been brought to my notice, is that in which the settlor being still alive, and the trust being of such a kind that it can be resettled, following 1949, the trustees recast the trust to make sure that it was a valid trust. The trustees in fact handed back the trust property to the settlor, and the settlor returned it to them on terms which, quite apart from this Bill, would make it quite clear that the trust was a valid one.
That happened following 1949 and before the Report came out and the Government announced that something was going to be done. These trustees, again, had themselves sought to do what had to be done to put their position right. So far as I know there is only one difficulty which arises about them. It may even be that this Bill is not the place to put that right, but I think that it ought to be put on record that if the settlor in such a case as that should die within five years of making that arrangement, since he has taken his property back and given it to the trustee again, death duties will fall to be paid, and these death duties would not fall to be paid assuming that the original trust was made more than five years ago.
This is a complicated point, but I hope that on the record I shall have made myself clear. It may be more appropriate to deal with this point in the Finance Bill rather than in this Bill, but I think that it is a point that ought not to be overlooked because I hope that the view of the House will not be that those who wish to put their position right will be in a worse position after this Bill

than those who did nothing and waited for Parliament to help them.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I hope that when the Attorney-General replies, he will clear up the confusion that obviously exists with regard to the meaning of Clause 4 of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) has just pointed out, the Clause is full of ambiguities and unless it is clarified it will lead to a great deal of confusion in the minds of those who have not only to administer any imperfect charitable trust, however valid, but also in the minds of those who have to advise them.
I ask the Attorney-General whether it is intended by Clause 4 (1) to deprive of the benefits of this Bill any imperfect charitable trust in respect of which any legal proceedings have begun since 16th December, 1952. I gather that the Attorney-General takes that view.

The Attorney-General: I dealt with that, but the hon. Gentleman was not here. I can easily deal with it again.

Mr. Fletcher: I was here during part of that time and I am very glad to have that confirmation.
If that is his view, I should have thought it very doubtful whether that is the effect of the Clause. The Clause says:
This Act shall not apply for the purpose of any legal proceedings. …
In the ordinary way, an Act does not apply for the purpose of legal proceedings. Either an Act of Parliament applies to given circumstances or it does not. It is possible to provide that in the course of certain legal proceedings the provisions of a certain Act of Parliament shall not be operative. But the Clause is particularly ambiguous, because it leaves quite unexplained the position of a charitable trust in respect of which legal proceedings were begun before 16th December, 1952, and were either completed before that date or suspended before or since that date and held in abeyance.
If it is the intention of the Government to provide in the Bill that any charitable trust in respect of which any proceedings were begun before 16th December, 1952, shall not operate, it seems to me that a


considerable injustice will be done. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and my right hon. and learned Friend have pointed out, there were a number of cases in which, before 16th December, 1952, proceedings were taken, not of an adverse nature to the charitable trust, by some party or parties who would have been entitled to the property in default. Proceedings of a neutral character were taken by trustees, quite properly and very sensibly, to ascertain their position. It became unnecessary to continue with those proceedings when the Government indicated that legislation would be introduced.
Considerations of elementary justice would require that where those precautionary steps were taken before 16th December, 1952, and then suspended, those charitable trusts should not be deprived of the benefit of this legislation, which in this respect follows the recommendation of the Nathan Committee. I do not desire to press the point further, but merely to add my voice to those who have urged on the Government the injustice that will be caused unless something is done.
Having said that, I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) with regard to the very limited nature of the Bill. I share her regret, and the regret which has been expressed by other hon. Members on this side of the House, at the failure of the Government to do more in carrying out the recommendations of the Nathan Committee. There is no need for me to repeat that the whole of the law on the subject of charitable trusts is in a most unsatisfactory state.
I should have hoped that the Government, having embarked upon the task of remedying some of the defects in the present law, would have gone further and carried out in the Bill some of the other recommendations. After all, the Report is a substantial volume of great learning and merit, representing the work which a very distinguished Committee devoted to an abstruse subject, and many detailed recommendations which, after great consideration, the Committee put forward.
I ask myself, as other hon. Members will ask, why the other recommendations of the Committee have not been carried out If they are not to be carried out

in the Bill, can we have an assurance as to when the Government intend to deal with them? As my hon. Friend has said, it is not merely the purely legal considerations which compel some revision of the present law; it is also social considerations which merit some change being made.
In addition to dealing with the glaring cases of the cy pres doctrine, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East has referred, I hope that the Government will not take long before introducing legislation on the lines suggested in paragraph 140 of the Nathan Report, to provide a new definition of charities. The whole law of charitable trusts is still derived from the Statute of Charitable Uses of the reign of Elizabeth I and, as a recent Master of the Rolls said:
It is now very difficult to find any principle which will guide one easily, and safely, through the tangle of the cases as to what is and what is not a charitable gift.
Although the Bill goes part of the way to invalidate some charitable gifts which are imperfect because of the complexity of the law, it would be very much simpler to remove the possibilities of doubt and difficulty in the future by revising the definition of a charity in accordance with the concrete recommendations made in the report. There are many other most valuable recommendations, and I hope that the learned Attorney-General will give us some assurance about those matters.

10.16 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am very anxious not to keep the House up any longer than I can help, but it is right that I should reply briefly to some of the speeches which have been made. The debate has been divided into two parts, both in time and in matter. Before 7 p.m. we seemed to be discussing what was in the Bill, and since 10 p.m. we have been discussing mainly what is not in the Bill. It may be convenient if I deal with the latter part first
I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) the views of Lord Nathan on this matter. They have waxed rather indignant because the Government have not gone further in dealing with this specific point, and they have attacked me for it, but I should have


thought that Lord Nathan is probably the best witness on that subject, and he has been quite explicit about it. He said:
I know that nothing more can be done this Session, but I am hopeful that it may be done next Session.
I think we might leave it there, except that I should like to add that although the hon. Member for Flint, East took it for granted that everyone would be prepared to accept all the recommendations of the Nathan Committee, as regards what she described as interfering where necessary with the original intention of the trust, I cannot help thinking that there may be considerable differences of opinion as to how far one ought to interfere with the original intentions, however laudable may be the social intentions. It would be most injurious to introduce into this Bill hasty provisions which would prolong its passage through the House and might very well bring it into danger. We have tried to confine ourselves to the material points which the Nathan Committee regarded as urgent.
Another matter which has been referred to since 10 p.m. concerns Clause 4. I have already tried to make clear what is the intention of that Clause. The hon. Member for Islington, East asked whether it was intended to deprive of the benefit of this Bill any trust in respect of which any legal proceedings had begun. That wording is too wide, because proceedings might have arisen in connection with something which did not touch upon this Bill. That is why the words we have used are:
This Act shall not apply for the purpose of any legal proceedings…
Therefore, if it is to apply for the purpose of such proceedings, they must be proceedings in which the validity of the trust, from the charitable point of view, might arise. I entirely agree that there is ground for some possible argument or uncertainty about that wording, and I shall consider it carefully before we reach the Committee stage because I appreciate the kind of examples that were given by one or two hon. Members. One of my hon. Friends gave several examples and asked questions about them; they are well worth consideration and we will look at them.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for

Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) for the way in which he dealt with the general principle of the Bill, although he rather leaned over in one direction and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) leaned over in another direction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought the Bill was too generous to the next-of-kin and his hon. and learned Friend thought it was too generous to the illegal trusts. Certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) was of that view. It may be one of those cases where we are just about right if there are some critics who say we have gone too far in one direction and others who say we have gone too far in the other, if we take the middle course.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I think we all agreed with the conclusion.

The Attorney-General: Again the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East gave some useful lines of consideration with regard to Clause 4. I can assure him that we shall value his assistance on that subject in Committee, but I warn him that we have already had a great deal of trouble with the wording and I cannot promise that we shall find anything much better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) was concerned also about several examples of cases where trustees might have taken action of a prudent character and might possibly have done some damage unintentionally. We certainly would not want that to be the case and I undertake to consider that carefully when the time comes.

Mrs. White: Will the Attorney-General tell us if, in quoting the words of Lord Nathan about legislation for the next Session, he was indirectly giving an assurance that the Government have such an intention?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I cannot give any assurance beyond what the Lord Chancellor said at that time, namely, "I think there will undoubtedly be a White Paper."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY [MONEY]

Considered in Committee [Progress. 1st March.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Question again proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the setting up of an Atomic Energy Authority for the United Kingdom and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums in respect of the expenses of that Authority as the Lord President of the Council may with the consent of the Treasury determine; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer, if the Lord President of the Council with the approval of the Treasury so directs, of the whole or any part of the revenues of that Authority for any financial year:

10.24 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am well aware that the House ran a marathon race last night and is likely to run another one tomorrow night, Sir Charles, and I would not go so far as to ask the Committee to indulge even in a three-legged race. I notice that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has an Amendment down to this Money Resolution and, having made my short complaint, I shall retire as one of the legs and leave him to run his particular race with the Government.
The objection that I have to this Money Resolution is that it does not go far enough. The Committee will note that its main purpose is to provide moneys for the Authority out of sums to be devoted by Parliament and to recover moneys from the Authority. That is the sole means by which the Authority is to be allowed to have finance. No other powers are given in the Resolution.
That means that on the Committee stage on Clause 4—if we pass the Resolution in its present form—we shall have no opportunity of discussing the financing of the Authority. The terms of the Resolution are much too narrow to allow that discussion. Therefore the only opportunity that we have is now, and I make no apology for troubling the House with this subject at this late hour. It will be remembered that the Leader of the House caused the Money Resolution of the then New Towns Bill to be delayed

on 8th May, 1946, so I do not think that my right hon. Friend will object to my discussing this Resolution now.
As the Minister of Works said in his notable speech on 1st March, over £100 million had been invested already in plant, equipment and machinery, and expenditure was now running at over £50 million a year. He said that Britain must invest boldly and heavily on atomic energy. He said organisation was vital, and that
Good organisation, as efficient as we can make it, is the best guarantee that the huge sums which Parliament will be called upon to give will be well spent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 864.]
None of us objects to spending huge sums on this work.
What we object to is that those sums are taken out of the Estimates and that Parliament year by year, out of the taxpayers' money, have to find the sums which the Government consider necessary. The Financial Resolution should be withdrawn and redrafted so as to enable the Authority to borrow by permission of the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund for the capital expenditure that is required.
Very little was said about this point during Second Reading of the Bill. The Minister scarcely referred to it and the Leader of the House in winding up used the recommendation of the Waverley Committee, but the Waverley Committee itself did not think that it was the last authority on the subject. Parliament is concerned to save the taxpayers as much as possible, and if it can suggest an alternative it is its duty to do so.
Various suggestions were made on Second Reading as to how the finances of the authority should be handled. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made one—that the Authority should be allowed to borrow by public subscription on the open market. That suggestion is open to a security objection in that the Authority then cease to be in the control of the Government of the day. It would also obtain its money in too large a volume and too soon for its purposes.
The other suggestion was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) who said that amounts devoted to the Atomic Energy Authority should be taken out of the Estimates and put below the line in


the Budget accounts. The effect of that, assuming that the Budget remains in balance, or in slight surplus as it is today, would be to lower the figure for ordinary expenditure in the Budget and reduce taxation revenue by the same amount, which is the object of the exercise, at the same time increasing payments below the line and borrowing to meet the difference. That is an ideal solution, because it would put the Atomic Energy Authority on what the City calls a "tap loan" basis. Every time it wanted to borrow money it would go to the Treasury and the Treasury, under the powers given by an appropriate resolution, not the one we are considering now, would be empowered to allow the Authority to borrow on tap as it created its assets. It would take what it wanted at the time it wanted it.
The difficulty about this is embodied in certain words used in the Financial Statement itself. If hon. Members look at that they will see on page 26 a nasty arrow mark against the below-the-line expenditure. They will see at the bottom of the page "Payments for which the Treasury has power to borrow." There is no great authority like Erskine May about below-the-line technique; there is no Standing Order on it. It is a new device, and there is no way of knowing what it means, but this arrow mark is formidable and appears to mean that if the Treasury is not given power to borrow, as I want it to be given here and now power to borrow, these sums cannot be put below the line in the Budget accounts and, therefore, must remain above the line. They must remain inside the Estimates year by year forcing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put up taxation to an inordinate height.
The doctrine we are now applying under this very narrow Financial Resolution derives from past Treasury practice where, if a loan is given for something which is not immediately earning money, it must be done above the line on the Budget. But the Minister of Works has already said that the Authority is earning something. It is earning £200,000 a year from the sale of isotopes and very soon, we are told by Sir John Cockcroft and others, it will be earning a substantial sum in sales of energy to the Electricity Authority. Why cannot we treat this

Authority as the City treats a mine and borrow money on the market? Who knows the subject better than the Minister of Works who, before he held his present position in the Government, was closely associated with mining finance and was so able on the subject? We borrow money for mines 10, 15 or 20 years before deriving a full financial return.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the noble Lord a question which is puzzling me? I have listened to what he said with great interest, but I rather thought the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said the other night that the Authority should borrow. Is the noble Lord suggesting that the Authority should borrow, that the Treasury should borrow, or that the Authority should borrow with the Treasury guarantee? The last two alternatives would no doubt need some substantial provision in the Money Resolution, but not, I should have thought, the first one.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member was here, but I did open my speech with a reference to the proposal of my hon. Friend—

Mr. Mitchison: I heard it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I did say that in my view it was open to the objection, a security objection, that if we gave power to the Authority to borrow on the market irrespective of the wishes of the Government it might go roaring ahead on the production of atomic energy which the Government could not control.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: "My noble Friend has referred to me many times. I specifically said on Second Reading that the Authority should be allowed to borrow from the money market, subject to Treasury guarantee, and the analogy is perfectly clear in the case of other nationalised authorities—in particular the expensive one of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, which is always subject to Treasury guarantee.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If my hon. Friend puts it that way it is, perhaps, perfectly feasible. My answer to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is that I would like to do this in exactly the same wav as was done with the new


towns. In the New Towns Act, 1946, there are the very words—in Section 12 (3):
The Treasury may issue to the Minister out of the Consolidated Fund such sums as are necessary to enable him to make advances to a development corporation under subsection (1) of this section.
Subsection 12 (1) reads:
For the purpose of enabling a development corporation to defray expenditure properly chargeable to capital account, including the provision of working capital, the Minister may make advances to the corporation repayable over such periods and on such terms as may be approved by the Treasury.

Mr. Mitchisoa: With great respect to the noble Lord, that is an entirely different matter. There is no question of the City there. That is a question of advances from the Treasury.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am not talking about the City, except by way of the mines illustration which I gave. I am talking about the means by which the Authority should be entitled to borrow. I say that the Authority should be entitled to borrow, here and now, under this Financial Resolution, on the same terms as were so generously provided by the hon. Member and his right hon. Friends in 1946. If he complains about the method, his complaint is against the Minister of the day.
I think that I have taken long enough, in view of the lateness of the hour. There is considerable authority, including Professor Pigou, whose work I have here, for the proposition that where the State develops a physical asset, when that physical asset is capable at some time, even if not immediately, of earning a financial return, it is quite proper and legitimate for it to have power to borrow. I trust that even at this late stage my right hon. Friend will look again at this Resolution, because if we pass this Resolution and unless a new Bill is introduced—which may take years—we have passed the point of no financial return, and the wretched taxpayer will be forced to bear the burden.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has developed a case which, if valid, should have been embodied in an Amendment,

just as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has put down an Amendment on another issue. After all, this point of raising money on loan was raised, not only by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), but by other hon. Members during the Second Reading debate. If that point is to be raised at this stage, it is right that we should have an Amendment which can be properly discussed.
Of course, the noble Lord is right. Enormous sums of money are involved in the general proposal before us. Fifty million pounds has been mentioned, but something very much more than that may be involved. We have to remember that there is not only the question of the money necessary to provide for atomic energy considered as an industrial process, but also for research and development, the provision of buildings and machinery and laboratories and so on in connection with our military enterprises. We are coming to a pass when in peace-time we are asked to consider raising money on loan in order to provide for the security of the country in some future war. Hon. Members might as well propose that the Army, Navy and Air Estimates should be met by loans and that the future should be mortgaged to meet our defence needs.
This House must face the fact that this is a most dangerous expedient. It is true that the Authority will have to consult the Treasury, but it does not seem to be much more than mere consultation. Apart from certain vague promises about an annual report and the possibility of discussing that report in Parliament, this Authority will be entirely free to have powers of embarking upon expenditure amounting to many millions of pounds.
The Tory Party has made many references to the need for care in the spending of public money, and for the Government to bring forward a proposal of this sort whereby the head of this new organisation, at present the Lord President in another place—although we may get a Lord President in this House in the future —is to have full control over the spending of money to such an extent as is envisaged in this Bill, is a disgraceful procedure. It is a procedure which the right hon. Gentleman in his concluding speech on Second Reading made no effort to explain away.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now a long way from the Money Resolution. The House has already agreed to the principle of the Second Reading.

Mr. Hudson: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles, but I thought that we were discussing the raising of money on the Money Resolution. That is what I was discussing. I was trying to make the point that to give that Authority the power to spend money in such a way as is provided in this Bill, whether by means of a loan or by means of some other financial expedient, is not right. We are proposing to raise a vast sum of money and to leave the control of that matter in the hands of a Minister in another place. The Ministry that is to have ultimate responsibility for the spending of this money is one that has no experience of financial matters so far as atomic energy is concerned.

The Chairman: That is the point I was making. That has been agreed to by the House on Second Reading.

Mr. Hudson: Have we agreed we should give power to the Lord President of the Council to raise money to an unlimited extent, to an extent beyond any specified in this House so far, merely on his ipse dixit, and according to his general impression of what may be necessary? I must protest against this scandalous proceeding of handing over such power to a man over whom ultimately we in this Committee will have no effective control.
I bow to you Ruling, Sir Charles, if you say I cannot say anything about that now, but it does seem to me the most ordinary thing to discuss now, for the man to whom this power is to be given has no facilities to decide how the money should be spent, and spent economically. The Ministry of Supply, on the other hand, could consult, as it did, for instance, the engineering industry. It could do that as when it spent, as it did, £650 million in one year helping various engineering firms to carry out a public duty. At the end the Minister of Supply could justify in this Chamber what he had done, and justify it by an improvement in national affairs. Nothing of that sort can be done, or is provided for, here.
A protest must be made against a Minister in another place having power

of such a character as this Money Resolution envisages. I may have something to say about the proposal to limit the sum of money if an Amendment to that effect should be called and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, but the proposal about raising loans, made by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South should be resisted, for that is totally unacceptable.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: It seems to me that the question of whether the money should be raised as provided for in the Money Resolution or whether a loan is required is a question of degree. The question is whether the returns likely to be available from this project are in reasonable business proportions to the amount of capital involved. As I see it, the returns from this project bear little relation from a business point of view to the capital involved, and therefore it would seem that the loan suggested is ruled out of court. For that reason, I feel that it is essential we should raise the money as provided for in the Money Resolution. If eventually atomic energy is made available to the Authority, then further legislation will be required, and that will provide the opportunity of raising money in other ways.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I assume that if I take part in this general debate on the Money Resolution it will not preclude me from moving the Amendment which is on the Order Paper in my name.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I understand that the Amendment is not to be called unless the hon. Member wishes a Division on it.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It does seem to me that an unusual precedent may be created by this Ruling. If it is to be a precedent I accept it, but to say that an Amendment will be called only on the condition that there is a Division, appears to me to be creating a precedent which might have dangerous repercussions.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not setting a precedent, because the hon. Member can discuss the Amendment on this Motion, and can afterwards call for a Division if he wants.

Mr. Mitchison: Surely these seem to be new rules, because it presupposes that no one can now be persuaded. I would not put our powers of persuasion too high, but it is possible that in the course of the debate some Members opposite might be persuaded that after all we were right, but we could not tell that until we have exercised our powers of persuasion and watched the effect on the faces of Members opposite.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not depriving the hon. and learned Member of his power of persuasion. He can use it on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Ede: If no Amendment is moved, presumably the Question put will be on the Money Resolution which was read out when the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair, and if that is challenged Members will have to vote against the Money Resolution. Surely, if my hon. Friend is to have an opportunity of having a Division on his Amendment, he must have an opportunity of moving it before you put the main Question. At what stage prior to that will you afford him the opportunity of moving his Amendment? Unless the Amendment is before the Committee it may be difficult to get a reply on this specific limit to the amount suggested by my hon. Friend.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to move the Amendment he can do so at the end of the debate. If he moves it at an earlier stage it narrows the discussion.

Mr. Fletcher: Would I be right in thinking that the appropriate procedure is that we should proceed with our general debate and, after it has taken a certain course and terminated, I then have the right to move my Amendment, if I think it necessary—and if I do move it I have the further right of calling for a Division upon it? May I take it that you are not imposing any conditions upon me Sir Rhys?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is restating what I stated at the beginning.

Mr. Fletcher: On the general question I find myself not in entire disagreement with some of the observations of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount

Hinchingbrooke). My whole object in putting down the Amendment was to give the Government an opportunity of clarifying the position and stating their intentions with regard to the financing of the Authority. I am not concerned to argue that it is a good or a bad thing that some of the funds required for the Authority should be obtained by loan or entirely out of revenue—I can quite appreciate that there may be arguments both ways—but I hope it will not be long before we hear something from some Government spokesman as to the Government's intentions.
Very little has been said so far. When the Leader of the House, replying to the Second Reading debate, was asked by the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) to give some explanation of the position under this Money Resolution, he said:
I cannot give a ruling about a matter of that kind "—
that is, a financial matter—
for that is not my function."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 961.]
I do not know whose function it is to illuminate this debate upon the finances of the Bill. It rather looks as if it is the Minister of Works, although I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is also lurking in the distance and will no doubt be able to give us the benefit of his advice. The Minister of Works, no doubt very wisely, said very little about the financial arrangements. He did touch upon them towards the end of his speech on Second Reading, and I hope that if he is going to speak tonight he will clarify something of what he said then.
Curiously enough, one of the reasons which the Minister of Works gave for the setting up of the Authority was that it would enable the House to have more control over the field of atomic energy, but I very much doubt whether that will be the result if this Bill is passed. We know that some £50 million is being spent in the current year, but we have not been told how much is likely to be spent next year, or the year after that. All we can see, from the extraordinary vagueness of this Money Resolution, is that there is no limit whatever upon the expenditure which the Authority may incur.
It has been pointed out that, whereas we spend £50 million, the United States is engaged in a programme costing more


than £850 million. It was recognised during the debate that the extent to which nuclear fission, with its vast possibilities of both military and industrial nature, may take us with the advance of science in the next few years knows no bounds; and, in the same way, the financial expenditure which it may be necessary or merely desirable to incur also knows no bounds.
What I object to is that if we pass this Financial Resolution in the form in which it is drafted we give absolutely unlimited power to the Lord President of the Council, in consultation with the Treasury, to commit the nation to an unlimited expenditure. I do not think that there is any precedent—

Mr. Peter Roberts: It is only in one year.

Mr. Fletcher: It is in every single year, and we can have greater expenditure next year, and even greater the year after. The powers given to the Government by this Resolution are unlimited in duration and in amount. Furthermore, I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the powers given to the Authority are also completely unlimited. In considering the financial aspects of the Bill, one must have regard to Clause 2, which gives complete power to produce, use, and dispose of atomic energy. There is no territorial limit. This authority can indulge in research into nuclear fission, and can produce atomic energy, atomic bombs, and industrial plant. It can do that not only in this country but throughout the world. If I am right, I say that before very long it may well be found desirable that big plants, comparable to those now being put up for reactors, will be produced in other parts of the Commonwealth. They may perhaps appear in India, Pakistan, or some of the Colonies. I have no doubt that it is the deliberate policy of the Government not to impose territorial limitations on the functions, and duties, and powers of this Authority.
That being so, it follows that the kind of expenditure with which this Authority may be associated is unlimited in duration and in amount. If we are going to contemplate comparisons with the United States, we may before very long be working to an expenditure which is ten-fold

the size of our present estimate. If that is the case, I should think that it would become a financial necessity for us to raise some of that by way of loan rather than out of the annual budget.
We all hope that in a few years' time the state of international affairs will be such as will enable the Atomic Energy Authority to devote a larger part of its resources and future policy to industrial and commercial ends rather than to military ends. We all hope that the day will not be far distant when atomic energy and nuclear fission is used for the purpose of generating electricity. But, if that day is to come, considerable capital expenditure will be incurred. I should have thought that if this is the case, it would not be unreasonable to expect capital expenditure for specific purposes of that kind to be financed out of loan. I do not know whether my hon. Friend would object to that or not, but that is one of the questions on which I hope we shall have some enlightenment as to whether it is or is not possible under this Bill.
We have not yet heard whether the Government agree with the view of the noble Lord that the Authority has no power to borrow. It is not stated. All that is stated is that the Lord President of the Council has unlimited powers to finance this. That seems to me to be wrong in principle and contrary to accepted constitutional doctrine. It is novel to me that unrestricted powers of that kind can be given to any Minister of the Crown to finance a body which is not a Government Department and therefore only indirectly accountable to Parliament. I have put down the Amendment, which we shall reach later, because such an Amendment is essential if proper accountability to Parliament is to be preserved.
I can understand that something will be said about security and I do not belittle the need for that, but it is not open to the Minister of Works to raise that point because he went out of his way in his Second Reading speech to suggest that under this new arrangement the House of Commons would have some greater authority than it has had in the past. I doubt whether that is so.
We know that to date, while research and development of atomic energy have been so ably developed by the Ministry


of Supply, about £100 million has been spent. The Minister of Works said:
Up till now, hon. Members might have searched all through the Subheads of the Ministry of Supply's Vote in an attempt to find out just how much was being spent. They would have searched in vain, and they were meant to search in vain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 861.]
I am not sure that I agree with that. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was in office and we started the development of atomic energy, the party opposite were in opposition and I do not know whether they could have probed this matter or not, but I think it was their duty to do so. Today we have a more vigilant Opposition and it is the duty of this Opposition to see that Government Departments do not spend money recklessly and then try to cover it up. That is why it seems to me essential that some limit must be placed on the amount of money which, without coming to Parliament, the Lord President of the Council can provide for this Atomic Energy Authority.
I do not pretend that £20 million is the appropriate figure—it might be more or it might be less—and I reserve what I want to say about my Amendment until we have had some reply from the Government Front Bench about the general object of this Money Resolution.

11.10 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): We have had interesting views on this Money Resolution from hon. Members, but of such different character that I can only hope that I can cover them all in my reply. I must first deal with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), that the Lord President of the Council can spend what he likes without asking for the approval of Parliament The Money Resolution, which I imagine the hon. Member has read, states:
(a) the payment out of moneys provided bv Parliament of such sums.…
There will be an annual Estimate, of course, and that will be voted or not by the House. Therefore, to suggest that the amount of money to be taken for atomic energy developments is unlimited is quite inaccurate.
Further, I said on Second Reading that I thought that the House should have a

better chance of knowing what was spent. It was not possible—and we know the reasons why—for the House to disentangle from the Ministry of Supply Vote how much was being spent. Now that my noble Friend is to have the money put on his Vote, by careful deduction of what is going to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research it will be possible to see how much he requires for this purpose.
On Second Reading, the whole House wished the project well and there was a general feeling that it was right to press on with the civilian use of atomic energy. In case I did not make it clear on Second Reading, I ought to say that this sum of £50 million is exclusive of expenditure on weapons. This is the amount to be spent on the civilian side of atomic energy. It is of course, a very large sum, but the prize is enormous. If we succeed in developing power reactors that will enable us to generate electricity with a new form of fuel, this sum will seem quite small compared with the prosperity and comfort that we can then bring to our own people and to others
I am asked how the money will be found and controlled. The Money Resolution provides that every year the Lord President of the Council will be voted such sums as the House agrees to, and he will then make it available to the Authority. There is no power to borrow. That was the point made by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), with which I will deal in a moment. The Authority is treated in the Resolution exactly as if it were a Government Department but with extra latitude from minute Treasury control, as is set out in the White Paper, particularly in paragraph 15.
The reason we think that this form of Treasury control is the best is that the Authority is not earning anything at present and such a large proportion of its outgoings must be covered by the taxpayer. Therefore, we feel that the House will wish to keep this expenditure under the very close control which is exercised by the annual Estimate, by the surrender of balances and by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The time may come when the sales of fissile material or royalties from patents and designs may bring in a revenue sufficient to meet the running expenses of


the Authority. I am sure that that time is some way off, but should it arise then clearly the Government of the day must look at this method of financing again, because the Authority will have changed its character and it will be no longer appropriate to do what is undoubtedly right whilst we are in this stage of development. I do not believe that this system of annual Votes will hamper the Authority in its operations. It has not done so so far and now that we have adopted the recommendations of the Waverley Committee the Authority should be allowed rather more flexibility and discretion in respect of capital expenditure than is usual with a Government department.
It means that if we are embarking on a large project like Dounreay, the Authority will make an estimate of the total cost. It is bound to be a rather difficult estimate to make because there are a number of unknown factors. The Treasury will then agree to the project as a whole and we shall put into the annual Estimate the sum which we shall need to spend in a given financial year. If we get on faster than we expected, we shall have to come to the House for a Supplementary Estimate, as has been done before. That would mean that the Treasury would have to find the money rather sooner than we thought. If, on the other hand, we go slower than we expected, there would be a balance at the end of the year which would be surrendered and revoted.
Although it seems rather cumbrous, 1 do not think that system would in fact hold up the Authority at all. To the best of my knowledge the estimates for these great sums which are being spent on plant and research establishments were got out mainly by the Ministry of Works contracting department and they have been fairly accurate. There has been a small variation but, on the whole, they are fairly accurate. I do not know why we should not go on with small but not tremendous variations.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Will the sums voted annually by the House, of which the right hon. Gentleman is speaking, include military and civilian expenditure? There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the subject.

Sir D. Eccles: Because all money spent has to be voted by the House they will be on someone's Vote. I was saying that the figure we have been discussing so far is taken from the Vote on Account and did, in fact, refer only to the civilian portion of the expenditure.

Mr. Strauss: This is very important indeed. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Estimates for atomic energy are now to come before the House. He has also told us that expenditure on non-military matters is something like £50 million a year and might rise. It would, therefore, appear that by a simple calculation and deduction the House and the world will be able to know fairly accurately the amount which is being spent by the Atomic Energy Authority on military weapons. If I am wrong, I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would correct me, but that seems to be the conclusion from what he has said.

Mr. J. Hudson: A supplementary point arises from what the right hon. Gentleman has said and from what he said to me in answer to an interruption. He said in the Second Reading debate that it would be the business of the new Atomic Authority to decide
how much we ought to spend on atomic energy taking the programme as a whole…

Sir D. Eccles: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hudson: I am reading from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, c. 849. He added:
and then, within that total, how much ought to go on military uses and how much on the civilian uses of fissile material.
Finally, to clinch the point, he read from Clause 3 (1): that the Lord President is given the specific duty
… of securing that, in the conduct of the affairs of the Authority, the proper degrees of importance are attached to the various applications of atomic energy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 849.]
Surely, when the Lord President attaches this particular degree of importance, he either raises the amount which is to be devoted to atomic energy for industrial purposes or the amount due for military purposes. Does not that follow from that statement?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that the hon. Gentleman is really misreading what I said. The question, of course, refers to the Government deciding on the policy


and not the Authority deciding how much we should spend. That is a responsibility which only the Government could discharge. I think the hon. Member is really confused about this. There is no question of the Authority deciding what should be done—that is in the hands of the Government and of no one else.

Mr. J. Hudson: But that is the Lord President's specific duty.

Sir D. Eccles: It is his -duty as a Member of the Government. Therefore, just as now the Government will decide how much. Previously this has been expressed through the Minister of Supply. Now it will be expressed through the Lord President.
On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), the £50 million covers the production of fissile material. But it will not be possible to know how much is actually being spent on the weapons—that, naturally, has to be kept secret—because it is only a matter of accounting between the Ministry of Supply and the Authority. The right hon. Gentleman will see that it is just a question of book entries made "between one Department and another.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think that this is very important. I am not at the moment disagreeing with the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is enunciating, but, in fact, it is not quite accurate to say that this £50 million is devoted entirely to non-military affairs at the moment. It is for the manufacture of fissile materials which are used for both military and non-military purposes. Would that be a more accurate statement?

Sir D. Eccles: Of course, exactly to which use the material is put would affect the issue. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's words, which I think are more accurate.
I come to the main point made—

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am sorry to interrupt, but it is important that this should be cleared up. The Minister has said that perhaps the most important thing is to decide how much is to be spent on military and how much on non-military uses. Will that information be disclosed

to Parliament to enable it, if it so desires, to criticise that decision?

Sir D. Eccles: No, I think undoubtedly not. Because if that information were disclosed to Parliament then there would arise exactly the situation which the right hon. Gentleman feared; namely, that the size of the weapon programme would be known throughout the world. No, I should say not.
The really important point raised by my noble Friend was whether some of this money should be raised by loans and not be charged to the annual Vote. There are two points there. First, would the Authority be able to get on better with the work if its money came from loans? For the reasons I have already given, I do not think so. I do not foresee that these capital projects will be held up by the system of annual estimating and grants that we have provided for. When we come to the question of whether it would be in the national interest that we should tax less and borrow more— because that, I think, is really what my noble Friend is suggesting—then the Authority does not seem to be a very suitable body for carrying out that policy, if it should be agreed as a policy, because it has no revenue. Therefore, any borrowing which the Authority did would be a straight Government loan like a Defence Bond, in which the Treasury would stand behind it both for the interest and for the redemption.
We are still in the stage of development work, which does not lend itself to financing out of loans. At Dounreay we shall be more concerned with getting information about the design and behaviour of reactors than with electricity. We hope that we are going to get a reasonable supply of electricity, but the primary object of the plant is to discover how to design such power stations in order that, with such modifications as may seem to be advisable, other people afterwards can put them up at an economic cost. We do not suppose for a moment that the electricity we get from Dounreay will be a paying proposition, because of the experimental work which will be carried on. I do not think that that work is very suitable for loans.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Am I to understand that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that if. the experiments are


successful, and, as he said in his Second Reading speech, the work of producing electricity is handed over to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board and the British Electricity Authority, they will be the bodies to raise the money in order to produce the powerful electricity stations of the future?

Sir D. Eccles: That is quite so. Presumably there will be some financial arrangement between the electricity authorities and the Authority. The latter will sell the material and, no doubt, get some royalties.
The real point here is that the Government's expenditure on all types of outlay remains the same. It is a question of whether the proportion which is now covered by taxes is too big or too little, and whether a greater proportion of the Government expenditure should be found by borrowing. That is obviously a point for the Chancellor. It is not one for me.
My noble Friend probably realises that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has departed quite a long way from financing the under-the-line expenditure out of taxation. He has already got a severe problem there. The surplus which he budgeted for was considerably less than the under-the-line expenditure, and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that the National Debt last year went up. Whether it is advisable to increase the proportion of borrowings is a matter for the Chancellor when he surveys the whole situation.
I should, however, like to say this to my noble Friend whose argument is very interesting. He says that to transfer now from taxes to loans would help the economy. I think that it is a matter of timing. If we had unemployment and idle resources, I should be inclined to agree with my noble Friend, but, in spite of what is happening in the United States of America, our manpower and our savings are now pretty fully employed and our costs are in danger of rising faster than our competitors' costs. In that situation it might be very dangerous to raise more money by loans, because the result might be that prices would rise and that the object which my noble Friend has at heart, and that we all have

at heart, of making our life easier, would be defeated by rising prices.
I do not know where the line should be drawn between taxation and borrowing. It is only the Chancellor who can tell that, and I will convey to him the suggestion that my noble Friend has put. The proposal to borrow is a handy weapon that, I think, we should keep in store. Whether it will ever be applicable to the Atomic Energy Authority I do not know. It depends on whether that Authority earns revenue or not.
In the meantime, I am convinced the House wants to press on with this great experiment and would not wish us to confine the expenditure to £20 million, which would rule out Dounreay and several other very important projects. I think that at this stage of this great new industry we shall be all right with the system of finance in the Money Resolution, and that Parliament will have its annual right to say yes or no to the amount of money that is put in the Lord President's Vote. I therefore hope we may have this Financial Resolution.

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) desire to move his Amendment, in line 4, after "sums" to insert "not exceeding twenty million pounds"?

Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the statement made by the Minister and the lateness of the hour, I do not desire to move the Amendment, Sir Charles.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the setting up of an Atomic Energy Authority for the United Kingdom and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

(a)the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums in respect of the expenses of that Authority as the Lord President of the Council may with the consent of the Treasury determine; and
(a)the payment into the Exchequer, if the Lord President of the Council with the approval of the Treasury so directs, of the whole or any part of the revenues of that Authority for any financial year.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

SALMON POACHING, SCOTLAND (CONVICTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Conant.]

11.32 p.m.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I wish to focus the attention of the House on the subject of a Question which I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on 9th February—how many convictions for poaching had been registered under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, and what amount of money had been levied in fines. I was informed that there had been 495 convictions and that there had been levied in fines the huge sum of £3,075. Some of us would like to know if the Government propose to finance the building of the Forth Bridge by collecting levies from the anglers of Scotland.
This question has aroused considerable interest all over Scotland. I am fully conscious of the many pitfalls one can fall into when discussing this subject on this Motion, but I am not seeking any new legislation, nor do 1 seek to criticise the judiciary. When we were passing the Act, I specifically defended our courts, and pointed out the great danger in which the Act would place them. It is interesting to study the reactions of various people. I have received a letter from the Blackface Sheep Breeders' Association of Scotland telling me that a man is punished far more for poaching than for stealing a sheep, and some people allege that the death penalty is still in operation in Scotland for sheep stealing.
I took the trouble to send on this letter to the Secretary of State, and I noticed from the Press that a Member opposite copied my example and did the same thing. We have both got the same reply, which was that the right hon. Gentleman was instituting an inquiry. I want to make that inquiry as wide as possible, because I have a letter here from one of my constituents, John Coffey, who served for five years in the Forces, was decorated six times for his services, and is a railway worker. John Coffey, according to the charge sheet, was found in possession of a cleek and a stick on the public highway. A cleek is a piece of twisted wire.

which is sometimes used for the taking of salmon.
He being found in possession of this instrument, which according to the Act of 1951 could be used for the taking of salmon, it was interpreted that John Coffey had evil intentions by being near the river. He is hauled into court and is fined £8 for a first offence. That means that he is fined 12 days' pay and confined to the house. He gets as much for the first offence as he would if he had two railway rails and a lorry full of railway sleepers.
There was the classic example of the two men, Messrs. Hope and Ritchie, who were convicted at Selkirk sheriff's court on the evidence of a water bailiff with radar eyes, who saw round the bend of the river, and apparently that evidence was just too incredible.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not criticise the judiciary, for that would be out of order.

Mr. Pryde: No. I made it clear I had no intention of reflecting on the judiciary, I am in the position of defending it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought the hon. Member had complained about a fine by the judiciary, which is a criticism. I think.

Mr. Pryde: My next letter, of which I know the right hon. Gentleman has knowledge, is about a gentleman who was issued by the appropriate person with a fishing permit. His employee also was issued with a permit. The two of them decided they would catch the early morning rise, and this gentleman took his permit with him, but the employee unfortunately did not. When the water bailiff came on the scene, he sent for the police. The two of them were arrested and taken to the cells in a town in the west of Scotland. This gentleman pointed out he was a director of a firm, and his two co-directors were on the Continent, and he was required at his business at eight o'clock in the morning to direct his business. He was left in the cells until 11 a.m. That, I suggest, was a case that required some inquiry.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Would my hon. Friend say, about that case, which received some prominence in the newspapers, whether the gentleman


was caught illegally fishing or was it quite legal and he just did not have a permit?

Mr. Pryde: The tackle of both gentlemen was quite legal. They were said to be acting in collusion.
There is the classic example of the two boys of 14 years of age who were fined £2, with £1 8s. costs. In one case there was an intervention by an hon. Member of this House, and the fine was returned because it was discovered that it was outside the law. The other fine was never paid.
I have another letter from an English longshoreman, who threatens me with publicity in the Press if I miscall his water bailiffs. I have no intention of doing that, because I have also received a letter from a correspondent in Peebles telling me that the Tweed Commissioners have considerably improved their forces of water bailiffs. When my English correspondent threatened me with rushing into the Press, I thought I would examine the Press, as represented by the "Selkirk Saturday Advertiser." It looks very much like a Saturday night effort, because it cannot copy the words contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There was not much to bother about in that journal.
But he also mentioned the "Peebles-shire News," which is a reputable organ, and said that it made fun of any suggestion that there was excessive punishment for poaching. I examined the front page of that newspaper and found that the author of the article in question was actually inculcating into the minds of the young people of Peebles ways and means of charming the fish out of the water without using a rod. He called it the "Wanless method." I take it that he was having a quip at the expense of one of Britain's greatest experts in angling, Alexander Wanless.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Secretary of State for Scotland is not responsible for these newspapers. No Ministerial responsibility is involved there.

Mr. Pryde: I am only adducing evidence of the interest which this subject has aroused throughout the country.
My final example of hardship comes all the way from Lanarkshire. Four young men were touring the north of Scotland with their fishing rods, and they decided that they would have a cast. It

was Sunday morning, and each of them was fined £40. They were fined £30 for fishing on a Sunday morning, £8 for fishing illegally with rod and line and taking one salmon, and £2, strangely enough, for being in possession of an otter board. Anyone who knows anything about angling knows very well that the otter board is the most deadly and effective of all the ways of charming fish from the rivers or lochs. They were fined only £2 for that, but £30 for fishing on Sunday morning. These lads were miners, working six days a week, and the only time they could get relaxation or recreation was on Sunday. They were kept in the cells from Sunday morning.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now criticising the judiciary.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask if it is not in order for an hon. Member to make his point? He is not criticising the judiciary, but simply pointing out that these men were incarcerated and then heavily fined.

The Deputy-Speaker: He may not be criticising the judiciary, but in any case he is suggesting alterations in legislation.

Mr. Pryde: Not yet.

The Deputy-Speaker: Then I do not know what he is doing.

Mr. Pryde: These men should not have been incarcerated, but they were, until eleven o'clock next morning, and £23 worth of rods and lines were confiscated. 1 ask the Secretary of State to widen his inquiries so that they take in not only one part of Scotland, but the whole of it.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I should like to support the plea of my hon. Friend to the Secretary of State to look at the working of this Act. I do not want to reflect on the decisions of the sheriffs who try these cases, but there is doubt as to whether evidence is presented to them in a way which gives the people charged every opportunity of getting justice. In the case of the Forth, about which the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr Malcolm MacPherson) and I have received considerable correspondence, the


feeling has been engendered that people are not treated fairly in the matter of the presentation of their cases to the sheriffs.
These men, in some cases, have been fishing for 50 years on the Forth, and it is a very difficult matter to decide what is fishing by net and cobble, and what is fishing by fixed instrument. So difficult is this that the learned Lords of the Court of Session in Edinburgh took one view, and it was only when the case went to the House of Lords that it was laid down what fishing by net and cobble actually was.
During the Second Reading of the Bill which is now the Act, we discussed very carefully certain points, and I endeavoured to acquaint myself as to what was the distinction between legal and illegal fishing so far as the Forth is concerned. I had some discussion with people on the Forth Fishing Board, and I found that the very people who initiated these prosecutions did not themselves understand what was the law as to legal and illegal fishing on the Forth. So, I am quite convinced that they may prosecute fishermen for what they think are breaches of the law when they themselves do not know what is the law.

Mr. James H. Hoy: My right hon. Friend should make it clear that these people are not fishing for sport. but as a means of livelihood.

Mr. Woodburn: Indeed that is so. During the early part of the war it was my duty to put forward a plea on their behalf from the point of view of enabling them to secure fish for the feeding of the nation. It is not a case of people who are poaching for sport or to amuse themselves at the week-end. The distinction is a narrow one between those who earn their livelihood a little to the west of Kincardine Bridge and those who earn it in the narrows, and there is a feeling amongst these fishermen that they are being unfairly dealt with in order to protect the fishing rights of people a little farther up the river. The part I am discussing is the estuary, almost the open sea.
It is a difficult matter and I sympathise with those who have to try to administer the law and to safeguard the fishing of the river, but it is my experience that

the men who are initiating these prosecutions are not themselves clear as to what is illegal fishing. Therefore the fishermen on the Forth have the feeling that they are being subjected not to the enforcement of the law, but to a kind of persecution against them because a simple change took place in the law which enables this to be done by a report to the fiscal instead of by interdict, as formerly.
One man who has been prosecuted is a highly respected member of the community. He, fortunately, was able to engage counsel, who was able to put the case properly before the sheriff and it was dismissed as not proven. There is a feeling amongst these people that they are not being dealt with fairly, but are being prosecuted when they are fishing legally, and that they are sometimes being convicted because they are not able to present their case to the sheriff and are not able to engage, at great cost, learned counsel to do it for them.
Therefore, the Secretary of State might look into the problem of the Forth Fishery Board to see whether it is not misusing its powers for the purpose of driving certain fishermen off the southern reaches of the river to protect those farther up it. That is an unfair discrimination, if it is the case, between one set of fishermen and another.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of providing a monopoly for certain people on the River Forth, and since these are the people who, I understand, control the fishery board, it seems quite wrong that one set of fishermen should have the right to persecute another set of fishermen. So I ask the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, to look into the working of this Act in order to see whether the people who are pursuing these prosecutions should not be better instructed in the law and should at least not give the impression by their actions that they are prosecuting and persecuting people in that area.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I shall not take more than a minute to support my right hon. Friend. I would remind the Secretary of State that practices are now being the subject of prosecution which, before the


passing of the Act, were carried on without being subject to prosecution. The nature of these people is unchanged, they have not become anti-social, but the legal position has changed and it is an almost accidental by-product of a law aimed against those poachers who use explosives.
My second point is that a number of the people in the area mentioned by my right hon. Friend feel that even amongst themselves a certain discrimination is being made. In other words, people are being selected as the victims of prosecution when they are not those who have been breaking the law most glaringly. I suggest that some kind of inquiry into the operation of this Act in regard to the lower reaches of the Forth would be well justified.

11.55 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) referred to what had happened to four men in Lanarkshire. The Secretary of State has already heard about these men from me. I am certain that all hon. Members and the majority of people outside this House want to have law and order in our land, but when citizens find that the fines are almost savage they begin to wonder if the legislation is correct, and that brings the law into disrepute. It is from that point of view that I would ask the Secretary of State to examine very care-fully the cases that have been brought to his notice.

11.56 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I assure the hon. Lady that I have a note of all the cases to which she has referred and I will communicate with her further.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said that the operation of the Act should be examined and he asked whether people were receiving justice. He suggested that people on the Firth of Forth were not being fairly treated. I know the matter to which he refers very well, but I can only say at the moment that he knows that the 1951 Act under which we are now working was based on the report of the committee presided over by Sheriff Maconochie, which was in

favour of curbing the use of "fixed engines" and said that moving nets should be used in the Firth, as elsewhere.
There is no desire on the part of anyone to put certain fishermen at an unfair disadvantage in comparison with others but the present position is that the law as it stands under the 1951 Act is being carried out. I cannot say any more on that point at this stage, but I should like to deal with the general operation of the Act since it came into force. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire will remember that I took some part in the debate on the Bill from the Opposition benches and I was frankly a supporter of the Measure which his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr H. McNeil) piloted through the House.
I know that the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles has rather strong feelings about the penalties that have been inflicted on certain members of the public. It was the general opinion of the House that legislation was necessary, particularly in view of gang poaching. I know that the hon. Member and his friends are more concerned with those who are genuine fishermen fishing on their own, but it is very early to suggest that any inquiry should be held at the present time.
I have all the facts and figures relating to prosecutions. In the great majority of what I would call simple poaching cases, that is those involving individual anglers and not gangs, the fines imposed since 1951 have been £5 or less, but where the offence is not confined to simple poaching but includes illegal methods of fishing I admit that the penalty may quite naturally be higher. Even so, taking that into account, the average fine since the Act came into being amounts to just over £7. Looking further into the figures, and statistics, I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that there has been a reduction in the heavier sentences. Those involving imprisonment for serious offences numbered nine in 1953 as against 16 in the previous year and 18 in only seven and a half months of 1951.
I suggest to the House with all sincerity that we have not yet given the Act a long enough time to operate. What little experience we have had suggests that the trend of events is going in the direc-


tion which the promoters of the Bill desired. Increased penalties were necessary, taking into account, for example, the increased value of salmon. The sentences passed under the Act do suggest that its effect is a deterrent. I hope that the trend will continue to be in the direction which the promoters desired and intended. I assure hon. Members that I am personally interested in the subject

and that I shall watch the operation of the Act. If necessity demands it we will consider the matter and see whether any further inquiry or amendment is necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.